Print

Print


Perhaps what is needed is some sort of white paper that would consider 
what this would look like and compare it to current practice.

One downside of it would be all the incorrectly linked authority records 
in OCLC.  Many people who don't do NACO but control headings in OCLC are 
going to link the headings to the wrong authority.  People will need to be 
vigilant to make sure that a linked name is linked to the correct 
authority.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
[log in to unmask]
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, John Hostage wrote:

> I completely agree.  Now, if we only knew someone who could influence
> the JSC to move RDA (and LC/NACO practice) in that direction. :)
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> John Hostage                              Authorities Librarian
> Langdell Hall                                 [log in to unmask]
> Harvard Law School Library    +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
> Cambridge, MA 02138              +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
> http://www.law.harvard.edu/library/
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> I agree.  In the context of the web, what differentiates any entity is
>> its unique resource identifier.  We should stop creating
>> undifferentiated name records and start establishing separate records
>> for each person or identity.  We can then clearly record all the
>> factual
>> information about each person in a clear and unambiguous way.  We
> don't
>> even have to worry about whether the text string that we use as an
>> access point is unique; the identifier will keep the identities
>> straight
>> -- and if we need something textual to differentiate in a display, we
>> have all the data elements associated with the person to choose from
>> (and by "we" I don't necessarily mean that a cataloger needs to make
>> that decision; intelligent machines are good at this sort of thing).
>>
>> I've been arguing for this change of approach ever since I understood
>> that the FRBR entity PERSON is not defined solely by the name of the
>> person and that our authority records should be less about controlling
>> the form of name and more about recording information about the person
>> (name usage being only one such piece of information).
>