Print

Print


I support the arguments and recommendations of the PCC discussion
paper on undifferentiated personal names.

The only elaboration I'd suggest is to footnote 3. While it's true
that in the LCNAF only personal names are allowed to have
undifferentiated heading authority records, there are also
undifferentiated headings in the LCSAF. As reported at the SACO at
large meeting at Midwinter, when two geographic features' names cannot
be distinguished by qualification at the county level, they must share
a heading and a single authority record.  Similarly, animal names
(e.g., Lassie (Dog)) established in LCSAF are not considered to belong
to individual animals.  If as the paper argues we need a paradigm
shift toward centering authority records on distinct entities rather
than distinct headings, then these LCSAF practices will need to come
under review as well.

Many thanks to John Riemer, Philip Schreur, and PCC for moving this
issue forward.

Stephen

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Barnhart, Linda <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> The Program for Cooperative Cataloging Policy Committee (PoCo) has been
> monitoring the discussion on various cataloging email lists over the past
> months and noticed a recurring topic of (and frustration with) authority
> records for undifferentiated personal names.  We wondered whether this was a
> problem that we should tackle now, in conjunction with the imminent changes
> to the LC/NACO authority file to align it with RDA implementation.  Even
> though this is not an RDA issue, we decided yes.
>
>
>
> Two PoCo leaders, Philip Schreur and John Riemer, volunteered to prepare a
> discussion paper, which is attached to this message and is posted on the PCC
> web site.  We invite community comment on this discussion paper beginning
> now through June 22, 2012.  The discussion will continue in person at the
> PCC Participants Meeting at the ALA Annual Conference in Anaheim.  There are
> several options for you to provide input, and the PCC Secretariat has agreed
> to compile the issues for the discussion.  To participate in this
> discussion, you may:  (1)  send your comments privately to the PCC
> Secretariat at [log in to unmask]; (2) post your comments publicly to one of the
> cataloging email lists, preferably PCCLIST, with a cc to [log in to unmask]; (3)
> voice your comments in person at the PCC Participants Meeting at the ALA
> Annual Conference in Anaheim in June.  While PoCo members will be reading
> the comments, we will not be able to respond to each comment.
>
>
>
> We expect that the community comments in the coming months will help us
> prepare for and design the public forum on this topic at the PCC
> Participants Meeting, and will enable those unable to attend that meeting to
> participate.   We are particularly interested in hearing from authorities
> and ILS vendors, and hope that providing this discussion paper now gives
> them time to think and react.  We also welcome reactions from the
> international community, especially from CEAL, where we know this topic has
> particular impact.
>
>
>
> Following the PCC Participants Meeting at ALA Annual, PoCo will reach a
> decision about the next steps in this process.  We look forward to your
> input on this substantive issue. --  Linda
>
>
>
> Linda Barnhart
>
> Head, Metadata Services Department and
>
>      Chair, Program for Cooperative Cataloging, 2011-12
>
> UC San Diego Libraries
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> 858-534-6759
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
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