LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


[email protected]


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

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST  November 2017

PCCLIST November 2017

Subject:

Re: LRM, RDA, and attributed authors

From:

"Adam L. Schiff" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 29 Nov 2017 00:52:58 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (185 lines)

Let's add Spirits to that list of entity classes.  Is the "Ghost of Christmas Past" a spirit or a fictional character though?  Since it's in A Christmas Carol, I guess it's a fictional spirit as opposed to an actual real spirit.  ;)

Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 4:34 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: LRM, RDA, and attributed authors

Stephen, thank you so much for your clear analysis of the situation and suggested solution to the problem. This would appear to be a quite satisfactory compromise between the AACR2/RDA tradition and the LRM requirements. I fully support everything you wrote.

I'm wondering, though, if all of these non-agents that don't fit into other entity classes will just be instances of "Res", or if a new class(es) should be defined in RDA. ("Fictional character", "Nonhuman being", etc. I could see an argument for just letting them be "Res", because where would you draw the lines--how many classes would need to be created? On the other hand, additional entity classes such as "Fictional character", etc. would allow for defining attributes specific to the classes.

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Libraries
Northwestern University
www.library.northwestern.edu
[log in to unmask]
847.491.2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 6:21 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [PCCLIST] LRM, RDA, and attributed authors
> 
> In the thread 'King power, by Richard III', I suggested that LRM 
> requires us to change the way we handle pseudonyms, spirit authors, 
> etc.  I would like to expand on that a bit.  I apologize for posting 
> this the night before a major U.S. holiday.  I want to get this down 
> before the topic dies and my memory of what I want to write fades.  
> Our friends outside the U.S. should understand that many or most U.S. 
> contributors will not be able to reply until Monday.
> 
> I will start by looking at Geronimo Stilton.  This is a fictitious 
> character, a mouse detective, who is the attributed author of a series 
> of books about his adventures.  The NAF currently has 206 author-title 
> AAPs for works and expressions with Geronimo Stilton listed as the 
> creator.  The series was created by Elizabeth Dami, and she is 
> presumably the actual creator of the books, but I have not found 
> confirmation of that.  There is currently no authority record for Elizabeth Dami.
> 
> RDA is being edited for a major update to incorporate the Library 
> Reference Model.  My understanding of LRM is that only agents can be 
> creators, and agents must represent real human beings or groups of 
> human beings who live or have lived.  Specifically, the scope note for
> LRM-E6 (Agent) says:
> 
> "Being an agent requires having, or having had, the potential of 
> intentional relationships with instances of entities of bibliographic 
> interest (works, expressions, manifestations, iems), whether that 
> specific agent has ever done so or not. Human beings are directly or 
> indirectly the motive force behind all such actions taken by all agents."
> 
> LRM also defines creator, contributor, publisher, manufacturer, and 
> distributor as relationships between a WEMI and an agent (LRM-R5 
> through LRM-R11).  So, in LRM, all of these persons must be agents, i.e.
> representations of real human beings.  By implication, they must 
> represent the actual person or persons who performed those roles.
> 
> I don't know what the new RDA rules will look like.  But the new rules 
> will clearly require some marked changes in policy.  From previous 
> discussions on this list, I believe at least some members of the RDA 
> Steering Committee feel that LRM does not require that every entry in 
> a name authority file be an agent.  That makes sense to me, too.  That 
> means that we can continue to have fictional and legendary characters in the NAF.
> But if we continue to use Geronimo Stilton as the AAP for the creator 
> the children's mystery books, I see a big problem.  If we redefine
> no2013042861 as a representation of the human author behind the books, 
> we would conflate two different concepts--the creator of the books, 
> and the fictional character who can be used in subject headings.  It 
> would get even worse if we ever see a biography of the author of the 
> children's mysteries.  It is confusing to use the same AAP for the 
> fictional character and the author.  To me, it is clear that under LRM 
> we need two distinct AAPs, one for the fictional character, and one for the creator.
> 
> The big argument under current rules for using Geronimo Stilton as the 
> creator is discovery.  People see Geronimo Stilton listed as the 
> author of the books, and are likely to look for the books under that 
> name.  I agree that this kind of discovery is important.  People 
> should be able to search for a book under the author name which is 
> listed on the title page.  But under LRM, the creator must represent a 
> real person, not a fictional mouse which can be used as a subject.  So 
> I believe it is important that we be able to record attributions in a 
> bib record, in addition to an AAP for the real creators and 
> contributors.  The Geronimo Stilton books would contain an AAP for the 
> author, and an AAP for the fictional character with a relationship designator identifying him as the attributed creator.
> Currently, RDA does not encompass attributed creators and contributors.
> 
> Moving to Richard III,  the subject of the previous thread, I believe 
> that using an attributed creator relationship designator would greatly 
> clarify the description of the work in question, and improve 
> discovery.  Again, we could have an AAP for the author, and an AAP for 
> the medieval king with an attribution relationship designator.  It 
> would be clear to users that we understand Richard III did not really 
> write the book, but it would still be discoverable under that name.  
> Defining attributed creators and contributors could help in numerous 
> situations, including ancient literature or literature of uncertain 
> authorship.  Classical works by pseudo- authors could include 
> references for the attributed authors.  We could describe a work both 
> as it represents itself and as it really is, according to the available information.
> 
> This also gives a good reason for retaining non-agents in the name 
> authority file rather than the subject authorities.  We can define in 
> rules or policy that non-agents (but not subjects) can serve in 
> certain non-agent roles such as attributed creator or contributor.  We 
> can define specific relationships for non-agents.
> 
> As I said above, I don't know what the LRM update to RDA will look like.
> And after the update, there will be significant changes to LC-PCC policy.
> Here are some of the things I hope will result from the RDA update and 
> subsequent LC-PCC policies.  I am presenting these ideas to see 
> whether other people agree:
> 
> *  Fictional characters, named animals, legendary characters, etc. can 
> and should continue to be represented as AAPs, and included in the 
> NAF, so that they can be recorded in non-agent roles.  For the rest of 
> this discussion, I will refer to everything in these categories as 
> non-agent identities, as opposed to agent identities.
> *  Authority records for non-agent identities should be clearly marked 
> in a machine-actionable way as authorities which cannot be used in an 
> agent role.  Authority records for agent identities should also be 
> identifiable in a machine-actionable way, either by a specific element 
> value or by the lack of a non-agent element.
> *  Authorized access points for all non-agent identities should 
> include qualifiers which clearly mark them as non-agents.  This will 
> make it much easier for catalogers to identify bibliographic records 
> which tag non- agent identities in the agent roles of creator or 
> contributor.  Using specific qualifiers will make non-agent 
> identifiers easily recognizable to the eye, augmenting the 
> machine-actionable element.  As a side-effect, it will make clear to users that we understand that these are not real people.
> *  Authority records for works and expressions should allow variant 
> access points with the attributed author as the first element.  For 
> example, the authority record for Micekings could have a 100 with 
> whatever AAP we create for the author as the first element, and a 400 
> field with Geronimo Stilton as the first element.  This would benefit 
> both discovery and automated authority control.
> *  RDA should be modified to include instructions on recording names 
> of entities with non-agent roles.
> *  Relationship designators for non-agent roles should be included in 
> RDA.  These should be separate categories from the current categories 
> for creator, contributor, publisher, manufacturer, and distributor, 
> and specifically open to both agent and non-agent identifiers.  
> Non-agent relationship designators should encompass attributed 
> creators and contributors.
> *  Only agent identifiers should be valid for use in 100 fields.
> *  Only agent identifiers should be valid for use with relationship 
> designators for creator, contributor, publisher, manufacturer, and 
> distributor.
> *  Both agent and non-agent identifiers should be valid for use with 
> relationship designators for non-agent roles, including attributed 
> creator and attributed contributor.
> *  Both agent and non-agent identifiers should be valid for use in 700 
> fields which have no relationship designator.
> *  NACO quality control scripts should ensure that all AAPs with non- 
> agent qualifiers contain the machine-actionable element identifying 
> them as non-agents, and vice versa.
> *  NACO should use scripts to mark all author-title AAPs which use a 
> non- agent identity as creator.  Steps should be made to change all 
> NAF records marked in this process.  If necessary, AAPs for the true 
> creator should be created, AAPs for works and expressions with 
> non-agent identities in the first element should be moved to variant 
> access points, and new AAPs inserted with the AAP of the human creator 
> in the first element.  (It is not necessary to know the actual name of 
> the human creator to create an AAP.)
> *  WorldCat should take advantage of the machine-actionable elements 
> to flag bib records which use a non-agent identity in a 100 field or 
> in a
> 700 field with a relationship designator for creator, contributor, 
> publisher, manufacturer, or distributor.
> 
> So, what do other people think?  Am I completely off base?  I am 
> hoping to use this discussion to direct the eventual discussion of PCC 
> policy, and possibly influence the development of the RDA update.
> 
> 					Steve McDonald
> 					Cataloging and Metadata Librarian
> 					[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

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
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