Print

Print


Richard &  Amy,

That 'problem', which I have heard before, is why I made the 
original suggestion to use 'author of' or 'editor of' just like we 
currently do in the undif AR since we avoid making the decision 
about the 'field'. The proposal requires no more effort than we 
currently do for the undif AR.

I agree that using 'field' like Amy proposes is better for 
identification in principle, but it would take more cataloger time 
making decisions and searching.

Mary Charles


> I agree in principle, although the problem with recent and current
> writers might be to determine what their field is, and how they
> will subsequently be known.
>
> Isn't there an Italian cataloguing standard that does precisely
> this?
>
> Regards
> Richard
>
> _________________________
>
> Richard Moore
> Authority Control Team Manager
> The British Library
>
>
> Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
>
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> ______________________________
>
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of David M Saah
> Sent: 06 November 2006 12:48
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] undifferentiated name records
>
>
> Agree with Mary Charles and Amy. And maybe reintroduce the use of
> relator terms (subfield 'e': compilers, editors, translators)
> when you are really in a bind.
> David
>
> David Saah
> Coop Team
> [log in to unmask]
> Ph: (202) 707-3131
> Fax: (202) 252-2082
>
>>>> [log in to unmask] 11/04/06 12:39 PM >>>
>
> Mary Charles, I agree 100% that it would be good to move away from
> undifferentiated name records.
>
> Furthermore, if the cataloging rules would allow an author's
> field of study
> in the $c, this would serve as a more useful identifier, for both
> catalogers and users, than the additions that are currently
> authorized. Imagine index screens that look like this:
>
> Turner, David, economist.
> Turner, David, electrical engineer.
> Turner, David, political scientist.
>
> Rather than this:
>
> Turner, David, 1945-
> Turner, David, 1947-
> Turner, David, Ph.D.
>
> As automated authority control improves, retrospective changes to
> headings
> should become easier and easier.   Perhaps the catalogs of the
> future will
> have headings like:
>
> Turner, David  (architect)
> Turner, David, 1945-  (electrical engineer)
> Turner, David, 1947-  (political scientist)
>
> Amy
>
> Amy H. Turner
> Monographic Cataloger & Authority Control Coordinator
> Duke University Libraries
> Durham, NC   27708-0190
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>              "Lasater, Mary C"
>
>              <mary.c.lasater@V
>
>              ANDERBILT.EDU>
> To
>              Sent by: Program          [log in to unmask]
>
>              for Cooperative
> cc
>              Cataloging
>
>              <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject
>                                        Re: [PCCLIST]
> undifferentiated name
>                                        records
>
>              11/04/2006 11:33
>
>              AM
>
>
>
>
>
>              Please respond to
>
>                 Program for
>
>                 Cooperative
>
>                 Cataloging
>
>              <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Paul,
>
> You have touched on a topic/problem that I hope we can 'do better'
> under RDA. I would like to see us move toward using those phrases
> that we construct as $c's with the author's name and setting these
> authority records up that way. THEN when we find out more about
> the author, we can change the 'distinct' AR instead of the
> 'non-unique AR if necessary. Several years ago I mentioned in a
> talk at ALA that I spend too much time looking for how these have
> changed and would prefer not to even have the non-unique AR. With
> a linked authority system those changes can be really bad with
> people writing books 100s of years before they were born. If
> instead of constructing non-unique's we created individual AR's
> with the phrases (that we already construct for the non-unique
> authority records) and then changed that AR when we have more
> info, linked authority system changes would automatically change
> the 'correct' authority record, only. Much/all of the time spent
> looking for the changed heading that is no longer on the
> non-unique (Is this the Tom Smith born in 1952, or 53, or is it
> Tom T. Smith or Tom Smith, Ph.D.) would be eliminated.
>
> Music catalogers already get to add these phrases and we see this
> type of 'qualification' on various web tools. What are the
> disadvantages? Do they outweigh the benefits?
>
> Mary Charles Lasater
>
> --On Friday, November 03, 2006 2:21 PM -0800 "Paul J. Weiss"
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> I note that the practice of bracketing data in one 670 per person
>> in an undifferentiated name record is not actually given as
>> policy anywhere. The MARC authority format give it as one
>> possibility ("subfield $a may contain a descriptive term for an
>> author enclosed within brackets "). DCM  Z1 touches on it in the
>> introduction and at 670. The NACO Participants Manual describes
>> the practice, but our NACO reviewer at LC continues to remind me
>> that the PM does not set policy.
>>
>> Do any of you _not_ follow that practice? If not, what was your
>> thinking behind your decision? Have any of you considered some
>> other practice?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Paul
>> UCSD NACO Coordinator
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________
>> Paul J. Weiss
>> Catalog Librarian and NACO Coordinator
>> Metadata Services Department
>> UCSD Libraries
>> 858-534-3537
>> [log in to unmask] _______________________________________
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> Mary Charles Lasater
> Vanderbilt University
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
> *****************************************************************
> *********
> Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk
>
> Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a
> Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabook
> The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
>
> *****************************************************************
> ********
> The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may
> be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only.
> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail
> and notify the [log in to unmask] : The contents of this e-mail
> must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.
> The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those
> of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British
> Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for
> the views of the author.
> *****************************************************************
> ********



---------------------------------------
Mary Charles Lasater
Vanderbilt University
Email: [log in to unmask]