Print

Print


I agree entirely on the need to remove this restriction, ideally sooner rather than later. There's a huge scope to create differentiated NARs for individuals currently represented by undifferentiated AACR2 NARs, by using RDA elements as qualifiers; to the benefit of the entire NACO community. 

22.19 and its RI have been widely ignored across the NACO file - terms for most modern occupations can be found as qualifiers in records going back many years (plenty of contemporary "librarians" for starters). So I imagine RDA-style differentiation with occupational qualifiers will happen anyway - in fact I'd be surprised if it hadn't already.

Regards
Richard
_________________________
Richard Moore 
Authority Control Team Manager 
The British Library
                                                                        
Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806                                
E-mail: [log in to unmask]                            
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: 02 September 2011 20:19
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] undifferentiated NAR with date in heading?

Reading Ana's post (thanks, Ana!) and the PCC-RDA decision document she cites, I found the arguments on this point weak, but thought I saw a light through the fog. The decision notes that "should RDA be implemented, .... it allows for the addition of various elements to names to differentiate them" beyond what is allowed in AACR2 (cf. RDA 9.19.1.6-7). But then, reading the PCC Post RDA Test Guidelines (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/PCC-Post-RDA-Test.html), I found this:

"If an existing AACR2 authority record for a personal name is an undifferentiated name record and there is now a date of birth, a date of death, or a fuller form of name for the person related to the resource being cataloged, create an RDA differentiated name authority record for that person, remove the appropriate 670 fields from the
AACR2 undifferentiated record, and report the necessary bibliographic file maintenance.  For other situations, use the AACR2 undifferentiated authorized access point in the RDA bibliographic record. Do not add any 7XX fields for RDA forms to the undifferentiated AACR2 authority record."

In other words, though creation of RDA authorities in LCNAF with occupation and field of activity qualifiers is permitted now, using them to differentiate persons on undifferentiated personal name authority records is not. The need to harmonize AACR2 and RDA authorities in the LCNAF will continue after the "real" RDA implementation. Can we expect that this restriction will be removed at some point?

In any case, I'm puzzled by the restriction. When a date is found for a person on an AACR2 undifferentiated authority, that person can be established with a new differentiated RDA (or AACR2) authority and removed from the old one. I don't see how this approved procedure would differ in its effect on systems from establishing an undifferentiated person on a new, differentiated RDA authority using an occupation or field of activity qualifier, which is not allowed.
Maybe it's just the volume of these changes that is being managed by the restriction?

I definitely agree with Ana that changes to authority practice should be approached with care and circumspection. But the current practice really is dysfunctional, and leaving it that way is resulting in more and more data problems to clean up later. "When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging."

Stephen

On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Cristan, Ana Lupe <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hello John and all,
> Earlier this year John Attig sent forward a suggestion to the PCC for 
> splitting out undifferentiated NARs into individual records and this was discussed at the OpCo meeting in May.  On the PCC page there is a document called: Outcomes from the PCC Operations Committee Meeting 2011 that in turn leads to a document titled: PCC RDA Policy and Practice Decisions Needed if RDA is Adopted http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/PCC-RDA-Decisions.doc that has at N-4a the discussion and results of this topic.
>
> The PCC RDA-Decisions-Needed Task Group is already at work looking over this document and their recommendations should be out soon. Bottom line -LC/PCC is aware of the flaws in the current mechanism for handling undifferentiated names but there also has to be a measured approach and recognition of the impact of certain decisions as not all systems will be able to handle the proposed outcome with the same ease.
>
> I recently served on the PCC Task Group charged with looking into feasible scenarios for slicing and dicing the LC/NAF in preparation for possible re-coding of NARs for RDA implementation and yikes! we need to be VERY careful what we wish for... In the meantime have a great labor day holiday and stay safe!
>
> Ana Lupe Cristán
> Library of Congress
> Policy and Standards Division
> 101 Independence Ave.
> Washington, DC 20540-4305
> Tel. +1.202.707.7921
> fax +1.202.707.6629
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
>
--
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

**************************************************************************
Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/
 
The British Library’s new interactive Annual Report and Accounts 2009/10 : http://www.bl.uk/knowledge
 
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://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 mailto:[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.
 
*************************************************************************
 Think before you print