LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCTG1 Archives


PCCTG1 Archives

PCCTG1 Archives


PCCTG1@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PCCTG1 Home

PCCTG1 Home

PCCTG1  October 2014

PCCTG1 October 2014

Subject:

Re: Strategic Topic: Broader participation in authority creation

From:

Chiat Naun Chew <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 6 Oct 2014 15:18:03 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (99 lines)

I was another member of the group that John chaired, so maybe I should chime in with a few general thoughts. 

There are developments going on outside NACO that could influence how we choose to expand participation in authority work - ISNI being one, as Andrew MacEwan points out. I would think the case for lowering the barriers to NACO participation *in some way* will remain pretty strong in any scenario. But I look forward to reading Andrew's update to see more clearly how ISNI and NACO could relate to each other. 

Because of those broader developments, I think this recommendation from the Name Authorities in Transition report should be read in conjunction with the recommendation it also made (which Beth circulated for comment back in July) to permit the use of non-LCNAF authorities in PCC cataloguing. The idea behind these recommendations was to both expand our contribution to the pool of registered identities and take advantage of work already being done elsewhere. A move to using non-LCNAF authorities would clearly raise some big practical and policy questions, which is why our group also proposed appointing a task group to develop guidelines. 

(I should add that the proposal to use non-LCNAF authorities originally came from the PCC Task Group on the Creation and Function of Name Authorities in a Non-MARC Environment, but we strongly endorsed it.) 

I also very much like Kate's idea of identifying some possible demonstration projects for populating authorities with additional data. There are many kinds of work, some of them already under way, that could conceivably feed into such an effort. I very much hope that the PCC will pursue this idea. If we identify some good projects we could learn a lot from them. 


Naun.

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Riemer, John
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 4:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Strategic Topic: Broader participation in authority creation

As chair of the group that the BIBFRAME Authorities white paper, I can assure you that the Advisory Committee on Initiatives far preferred the first option, in which everyone would be working in a single file.  The second option was merely a fall-back measure, in the event that the "NACO-lite" proposal got rejected.

In support of a new level of participation, the Authorities format is already equipped with these two values in Leader/17:

17 - Encoding level
n - Complete authority record
o - Incomplete authority record

In order to support linked data,  we are going to need a lot of help getting identifiers established.  Think of all the access points in bibliographic records not now covered in an authority file, as well as the corporate bodies needed for institutional affiliations in 373 fields of personal NARs.

   John

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 8:46 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Strategic Topic: Broader participation in authority creation

On the first recommendation, which I could support, I think one might want members who could just contribute certain kinds of names (perhaps just personal names, for example), or "simple" names (although how to do define that I'm not sure).  I think the second one is problematic.  Making catalogers check two separate authority files is not very efficient, and is bound to create duplication of names.  And how would those non-NACO members be trained to be sure they understand NACO guidelines and RDA?  I see the second recommendation as very problematic.

Adam

On Fri, 3 Oct 2014, Beth Picknally Camden wrote:

> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 11:33:29 -0400
> From: Beth Picknally Camden <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [PCCTG1] Strategic Topic:  Broader participation in authority
>     creation
> 
> Everyone:
>
> It's time for one last strategic theme for discussion.   I would like us to 
> look at Recommendation 3 for the ACI report: "Significantly expand the 
> ranks of those who can create
> identifiers/contribute authority data".   They propose two ways of expanding:
>
> * Expand NACO participation with a "NACO lite" level of participation
> * Endorse the creation of a separate, parallel authority file to which
>   non-NACO members could make contributions
>
> What are the pros/cons of these options?   Should we do both, or neither? 
> Other thoughts on this recommendations?
>
> -Beth
>
> --
> ********************************************************
> Beth Picknally Camden
> Goldstein Director of Information Processing University of 
> Pennsylvania Libraries
> 215-746-4149            [log in to unmask]
> http://bpcamden.wordpress.com/
>
> "You must be the change you wish to see in the world".
> --Mahatma Gandhi
> *********************************************************
>
>

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
[log in to unmask]
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--
Chew Chiat Naun
Director, Cataloging & Metadata Services
110D Olin Library
Cornell University
(607) 254 8031

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
August 2019
July 2019
May 2019
April 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
October 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
December 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
June 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
July 2000

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager