At 02:19 PM 6/2/2010, Mary Mastraccio wrote:
>I agree with both Deborah and Ted. Undifferentiated name headings 
>should be avoided---as should Differentiated name headings that are 
>name only just because no other name authority record has been 
>established yet--but at the same time it is creating a mess to use 
>occupation or fields of activity in subfield $c.
>Stephen Hearn supplied the correct solution. In the bib heading, use 
>subfield $0 for the appropriate authority control number. New fields 
>defined in the authority record should be used to supply the 
>occupation (374) and field of activity (372). We should not really 
>have to wait for RDA testing to start using these--they are/will be 
>useful whether or not RDA is adopted, so let's start supplying them 
>now. Ted is correct that currently systems don't search or display 
>data in these fields but that can and will change.

It seems to me that we have traditionally assumed that authority 
control was equivalent to name control -- i.e., we establish a 
heading for the name of the person, family, or corporate body, and 
let that name represent the person, etc. The undifferentiated name is 
where all that breaks down because we are unable to establish a 
one-to-one equivalence between person and name.

RDA -- as an implementation of FRBR/FRAD -- suggests that the 
person/family/corporate body entity is conceptually distinct from the 
(a?) name by which the entity is identified.  And other developments, 
such as the VIAF, reinforce the distinction, reminding us that a 
given person may have more than one name -- even more than one valid 
preferred name.  I believe that we will begin to separate the 
concepts of person/family/corporate body and name, and that we will 
recognize that the name is not the only way to identify and 
differentiate persons/families/corporate bodies.

In the case of the undifferentiated personal name, our present 
practice is clearly to establish the NAME, not the PERSON.  I would 
like us to turn that practice on its head: establish a separate 
authority record for each distinct person.  That record will have a 
variety of identifying elements, including (as Stephen Hearn notes) a 
resource identifier.  That may be the most significant element in the 
record as we move towards linked-data applications.  If we have 
separate records for each person, it may not be necessary for the 
NAME in each record to be textually differentiated; it may be 
sufficient the use the resource identifier to differentiate, although 
it might not be necessary to *display* the identifier as part of the 
access point.  [I would suggest that it should be sufficient for the 
resource identifier to be carried at the record level and need not be 
repeated in subfield $0 in the 1XX field.]

Finally, I would remind everyone that the new MARC fields in the 
authorities format are not to be used in NACO records until this fall 
when OCLC has completed its testing of the NACO 
infrastructure.  After that, I would agree with Mary that we needn't 
wait for RDA implementation to start using the new elements; although 
they are associated with RDA, they are in fact pulling out data that 
many of us have included in 670 fields in AACR2-based authority records.

         John Attig
         Authority Control Librarian
         Penn State University
         [log in to unmask]