Print

Print


I would think someone would have to make a proposal to the PCC - either to 
one of the standing committees or to the operation committees or directly 
to the policy committee.  Perhaps someone from Coop could tell us what the 
proper route to take for such a proposal is?

Adam

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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 Thu, 1 Sep 2011, John Hostage wrote:

> I agree as well.  LC and the PCC have the power to implement this; why isn't it being done?
>
> ------------------------------------------
> John Hostage
> Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian
> Langdell Hall
> Harvard Law School Library
> Cambridge, MA 02138
> [log in to unmask]
> +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
> +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
> http://www.law.harvard.edu/library/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ed Jones
> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:13
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] undifferentiated NAR with date in heading?
>
> I agree strongly, especially in the context of automated authority control. Updating bib records connected to discrete authority records with identical headings, after one of those headings is rendered unique, can be done by machine. Updating bib records connected to a single shared authority record in the same circumstances must be done manually.
>
> Ed Jones
> Natl Univ (San Diego)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 8:27 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] undifferentiated NAR with date in heading?
>
> The instruction in DCM Z1 008/32 says:
>
> When information is found to distinguish a person included on an
> undifferentiated name record, always create a new name authority
> record for that person. Delete information pertaining to that person
> from the undifferentiated name record. Add a 667 note on the new
> record to identify the LCCN of the authority record on which
> information about that person has been recorded:
>
> 667    $a Formerly on undifferentiated name record: [LCCN of
> undifferentiated name record]
>
> When an undifferentiated personal name authority record is being
> revised to delete all but one name, change value "b" to "a."  Delete
> all of the other data applying to the name(s) being deleted from the
> authority record.  Also delete the bracketed caption for the one name
> remaining.
>
> So, clearly you are instructed to move the original identity
> associated with the now undifferentiated authority off to a new
> authority, and to revise the existing authority so that it will
> represent a different person from the one it was created for. It's a
> really terrible practice, but that's what we're instructed to do.
>
> We really need to drop the whole concept that undifferentiated name
> authorities should represent multiple people. The authority record's
> unique identity should itself serve to differentiate the person it's
> associated with. We ought to be creating multiple authorities with the
> same 1XX when necessary, and letting the LCCN and the facts presented
> on the records serve to differentiate the persons for such purposes as
> controlling headings. Systems should be able to represent the
> distinction in indexes without requiring that the 1XXs be distinct, as
> many non-library systems already do.
>
> Stephen
>
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Ian Fairclough
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Dear PCCLIST readers,
>>
>> Thanks to Gary Strawn and Richard Moore for their replies.  The author of
>> the book under consideration has sent his birth date, Feb. 3, 1967.
>>
>> So, what's next?  Create a new NAR for him (when the existing one was
>> originally for him)?  Or create a different NAR for the other person, who
>> now becomes unqualified but differentiated (in the sense that no other
>> person is represented on the record - I think).  I suspect that both
>> practices are extant.
>>
>> - Ian
>>
>> Ian Fairclough
>> George Mason University
>> [log in to unmask]
>> 703-993-2938 (office)
>> __________________________
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
> Technical Services, University Libraries
> University of Minnesota
> 160 Wilson Library
> 309 19th Avenue South
> Minneapolis, MN 55455
> Ph: 612-625-2328
> Fx: 612-625-3428
>