Print

Print


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