LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST  September 2015

PCCLIST September 2015

Subject:

Re: Changing "active" date to full dates?

From:

Ted P Gemberling <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:54:12 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

Amy wrote:
"Until linked data, headings are arbitrary constructs to keep works collocated."

I think you're overdoing the arbitrariness. If an active date is just one year off, this creates no problems. But if it is a few years off, patrons may question whether it is the right person. The text string needs to be plausible to users, who frequently know more about an author than catalogers know.

I suppose this is a problem with active dates in general. So much depends on which resources happen to have been cataloged at present. Including "approximately" before the dates helps some, but if the discrepancy is more than several years, even that may not be satisfactory.

I wonder if we could hire history graduate students to do bibliographic file maintenance. I did that some when I was in history graduate school at Indiana University. They gave me a list of headings to look up and fix in the catalog. I was paid the minimum wage. This shouldn't have to be a real expensive thing for libraries.

Ted Gemberling
UAB Lister Hill Library


-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Amy Turner
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 1:12 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Changing "active" date to full dates?

And my responses to your responses follow.

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Laurence S. Creider
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 1:47 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Changing "active" date to full dates?

Good points, my responses are interpolated.

Larry
--
Laurence S. Creider
Head, Archives and Special Collections Dept.
University Library
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM 88003
Work: 575-646-4756
Fax: 575-646-7477
[log in to unmask]

On Wed, September 23, 2015 11:31 am, Amy Turner wrote:
> I can offer three reasons for not making this sort of change:
>
>
> 1) Looking forward to the linked data environment, when it is
> identifying an entity that is important, not the exact character string.
>
>>Where does one draw the line? Misspellings should be changed, incorrect dates, what?

I'd like to leave this up to individual discretion, with encouragement to leave the heading as is. But if some catalogers like to keep getting headings more and more accurate while others want to leave well enough alone, no harm will be done by the two methods coexisting (except possibly the harm described in point 3 below).

> 2) Putting more priority on creating new authority records than on
> maintaining new ones. I’d like to say to catalogers who “want to
> do the work,” that I don’t want to stop you, just to point out
> that those who don’t make that choice are probably not using time
> saved to get off work early and have a beer, but rather dealing with
> expanding workloads and ever-diminishing staff. A lot of time goes
> into not just making these changes, but discussing whether or not to
> make them. I prefer to correct headings on existing authority records
> only when there is a clear error that I believe hampers access.
>
>>An "active" date calls out for update because it does happen that one discovers something created and first manifested outside the dates. If one runs across >>a correct date (as opposed to searching for a date), I am in favor of changing the one heading. With linked data, such changes should become easier and less >>labor intensive.

Debatable. I think that if a person has been described as "active 1922" (commonly done when only one work is known) the discovery of a second work a few year later does not make the established AR wrong. Until linked data, headings are arbitrary constructs to keep works collocated. After linked data (if it delivers as promised, and I understand those promises) there will be no more headings to be maintained, just collections of attributes identifying an entity, so yes maintenance will be easier.


> 3) Avoiding BFM, which while it is easier than it used to be, is
> still a factor. Often BFM simply doesn’t get done, so that changing
> an AR can change existing headings from “right” to “wrong.”
>

>>Why doesn't BFM get done? Lack of commitment is one reason, pressure of other work is another, but I think that the biggest problem in my experience is >>jumping through the organizational hoops that prove to be obstacles (How many individuals have to "bless" a particular change? How many people have to >>scent mark a particular change?). I think it would be better to devote more time to eliminating these issues.

The big reason that BFM doesn't get done is a long tradition of each library maintaining only its local catalog. Fine, for the headings that are there when the maintenance is done. But then, many (most?) libraries accept copy from OCLC without verifying the headings. So if, for example, a name has been differentiated in the NAF, but old headings have been left in OCLC, the old headings go into uncounted local catalogs. Automated authority control can catch changes such as replacing active dates with birth and death dates only if there is a reference, or a mechanism to make references from formerly used headings. It cannot make distinctions such as Turner, Amy vs. Turner, Amy, 1957-

Now that OCLC allows changes to records that an institution doesn't hold, I don't think there is anything stopping us doing better BFM there, except for the magnitude of the task and the lack of global search and replace capabilities.


> Amy
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 1:07 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Changing "active" date to full dates?
>
> Regardless of current PCC policy, replacing inexact dates with exact
> dates when they beomce known fulfills the Ranganathanian dictum to
> "save the time of the user." It also seems kind of silly to record
> information in the 046 that does not match what's in the 1xx.
>
> If BFM is no longer quite the painstaking process it once was, what
> (outside of "because them's the rules") is the rationale behind not
> making the change?
> --Ben
>
> Benjamin Abrahamse
> Cataloging Coordinator
> Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement MIT Libraries
> 617-253-7137
>
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Theroux, Manon
> (Secretary)
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 12:57 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Changing "active" date to full dates?
>
> Replacing flourished dates with birth/death dates was PCC policy in
> the AACR2/LCRI era. The NACO Participants’ Manual (3rd ed.) had this
> to say on p. 73:
>
> Generally, do not add or take away any information to authority
> headings
> (1XXs) coded AACR2 or AACR2-compatible (descriptive cataloging rules
> fixed field 008/10 will be coded c or d) unless there is a clear error
> or the addition/removal is called for by the rules (e.g., if birth
> dates become available for a heading with "flourished" dates (See LCRI 22.1)).
>
> It was in the 1st edition too (p. 71).
>
> I thought it was a good policy.
>
> Manon
>
> --
> Manon Théroux
> Head of Technical Services
> U.S. Senate Library
> SR-B15 Russell Senate Office Building
> Washington, DC 20510-7112
> 202-224-3833 (phone)
> 202-224-0879 (fax)
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Bratton
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 12:23 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Changing "active" date to full dates?
>
> I agree with Bob Maxwell, and I might take it a step further.
> RDA 9.19.1.5 states: "Add the period of activity of the person (see
> 9.3.4<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp9&target=rda9
> -4587#rda9-4587>
> RDA) if needed to distinguish one access point from another. Make this
> addition when the person's date of birth or date of death is not
> available."
> Since Jay now has the birth and death dates, I think he is justified
> in changing the AAP since RDA as currently written prefers them.
> The old NACO stricture to 'never ever change an AAP unless you
> absolutely have to' has evolved and continues to evolve. For example,
> we now have the option to add death dates to vampiric AAPs like:
> Smith, William,
> 1702-
>
> Robert
> --
> Robert Bratton
> Cataloging Librarian
> Jacob Burns Law Library
> George Washington University
> Washington, DC
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Robert Maxwell
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> Well *I* support your wanted change, Adam, and I think it’s a pretty
> common practice even in the absence of permission from RDA ☺
>
> Responding to the original question, I would change the activity dates
> to the actual dates.
>
> Bob
>
> Robert L. Maxwell
> Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> (801)422-5568
>
> "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine
> ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
>
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On
> Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4:33 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Changing "active" date to full dates?
>
> I wouldn’t consider making such a change if he had been established
> as “Adam, William ‡c (Missionary)” or something of the sort
> (though I would still add the form with dates as a 400).
>
> This issue came up before a few weeks ago. RDA says to use a variant
> name as the basis for a variant access point. That would mean your
> suggested
> 400 is not allowed. I think the variant access point ought to be
> allowed but didn't get much support for a change to RDA instructions
> to allow you to use a preferred name in a variant access point.
> Adam L. Schiff
> Principal Cataloger
> University of Washington Libraries
> Box 352900
> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:06 PM -0700, "Shorten, Jay"
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> I found from research the birth and death dates of n 82236641 ARN
> 1060906 Adam, William, ‡d active 1821-1861 . Can some remind me of
> the general PCC practice as to whether I should therefore change the
> authorized heading to “Adam, William, ‡d 1796-1881” or just add
> this form as a 400? Technically the active dates are not an error,
> though I think full dates are more useful.
>
> I wouldn’t consider making such a change if he had been established
> as “Adam, William ‡c (Missionary)” or something of the sort
> (though I would still add the form with dates as a 400).
>
> Jay Shorten
> Cataloger, Monographs and Electronic Resources Associate Professor of
> Bibliography Catalog Department University Libraries University of
> Oklahoma Co-owner, PERSNAME-L, the list about personal names in
> bibliographic and authority records
>
> jshorten@ouedu<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager