Hugh, you said:
>The question: wasn't the original plan - the one that was abandoned at the
>very last minute 23 months ago to the day - to change and redistribute _only_
>the authority records? (If my memory's wrong on this, I apologise now.) What's
>proposed now doesn't seem to be any different in this regard - the difference
>is that the change becomes a gradual dripfeeding of changes rather than a Dr
>Strangelove-like "big bang".
You're right of course. LC's announcement from dated 1st Aug.98 said:
*In 1996, the first indicator value 2 (Multiple surname) in X00 fields
*was made obsolete. Value 1 (Single surname) was redefined as "surname"
*to be used for headings with either single or multiple surnames. At the
*time value 2 was made obsolete, LC had an arrangement with an outside source
*to update existing authority records programmatically to change all instances
*of value 2 to value 1 in X00 fields; these updated records were then to have
*been made available to other libraries through distribution from LC. LC was
*recently informed by that source that it would be unable to execute this
*change. In view of this development, the Library of Congress has had to
*reassess its implementation strategy.
I am encouraged that OCLC are now offering to do this.
>The observation: the abandonment of the original plan was a significant
>problem for UK users who, led by the British Library, had moved ahead with
>a parallel (and otherwise very successful) implementation from which it
>was too late to withdraw (even if that would have been desirable). We've
>lived with two different values for 23 months. I'd like to feel that
>change is just around the corner - so, if there is to be renewed
>discussion on the strategy, please can we try not to let this drag on any
>longer than is necessary.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. Ironically, we had originally asked LC if
they could defer this until 1999. LC wished to move ahead in 1998, so
we gave the change a high priority and implemented successfully following
the original schedule. The continued presence of x00.2 on the NACO file
nearly two years later has significantly reduced, for us, the efficiency
gains to be made from co-operation on authorities.
>I understand Mike's concerns, but I have a dreadful vision of this thing
>still hanging over us unresolved in 2001, 2002, or ....
I would encourage LC to move forward with this change to the authority file
as quickly as is feasible.
Richard
*****************************************************************
Richard Moore Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
Cataloguing (Authority Control) E-mail: [log in to unmask]
The British Library
*****************************************************************
This is a not an official communication of the British Library
*****************************************************************
|