Print

Print


Gee... only how many years?  My comment refers more to me understanding why the record was deleted. I often spend too much time trying to figure out 'why'. Sometimes I hold onto the problem for another day and it is 'solved'... I find a replacement record. LC's practice of deleting a UT record 'when' THEY got a bib record is one of my... I JUST CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS things.

Enough rambling,

Mary Charles


-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 1:07 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Alternates for the RDA conversion

Is that not apparent from 008/10? Otherwise, it seems a bit late to be flagging records as not valid for AACR2! 

Regards
Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lasater, Mary Charles
Sent: 23 April 2012 18:25
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Alternates for the RDA conversion

All,

One of the records deleted last month was n80-44830 United States. $b Courts of Appeals. A 667 note was added "Not a valid AACR2 heading... "
Adding the note is a 'good thing', deleting the authority record... not good for me or some others.

Mary Charles 



-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 12:06 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Alternates for the RDA conversion

We also notice these from time to time.  And I recently had to report the cancellation of a record whose number was put as a cancelled number on a record for a completely different entity.  No explanation why a Russian corporate body was cancelled and merged into a personal name heading not even closely related.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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 Mon, 23 Apr 2012, Moore, Richard wrote:

> Mary Charles
>
> You make an interesting observation about the deletion of authority 
> records. We get a regular report from our system of authority records 
> that have been deleted by LC, so that we can check if we need to 
> update any bibliographic records. I've noticed on a number of 
> occasions that authority records have been deleted, where no duplicate

> existed, and we had used the heading in our database. We've had to 
> recreate these authorities records. I've not noticed, however, that 
> they were pre-AACR2 headings. Could someone from LC confirm whether 
> they have been deleting authority records where no duplicate exists, 
> and if so, would it be possible to stop doing it, please? ;-)
>
> 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 Lasater, Mary Charles
> Sent: 23 April 2012 13:20
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Alternates for the RDA conversion
>
> All,
>
> I also have limits on the number of authority records that I load each

> day. With a linked system it is hard to estimate how a given load will

> affect the system since a change to one authority record, linked to 
> many bibliographic records, can and did bring the whole system down.
>
> On another note, it appears that authority records that are not AACR2 
> or compatible are being deleted. I notified LC about one last year and

> was told it wasn't current cataloging, so the authority record was
deleted.
> I have just 'reinstated' locally some authority records for pre-AACR2 
> headings... things that would not be established now.  I cannot 
> re-catalog to AACR2 all those titles and think it is 
> counter-productive for these authority records, which represent 
> standard cataloging of the time, to be deleted. The 'unsuitable note'
> should be added to these instead. A 'pure' RDA authority file  is
probably an inappropriate goal.
>
> Mary Charles Lasater
> Vanderbilt
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 2:32 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Alternates for the RDA conversion
>
> I'd like to add some further comments to this.
>
> Concerning the coding of records, if records coded 008/10=c are 
> defined, at a given stage in the conversion, to be valid for use under

> RDA, then their remaining coded "c" need be no more problematic to man

> or machine, than the current status of 008/10=d as valid for use under
AACR2.
>
> Under both the original proposal, and the improved Option 3, all 
> authorised access points needing manual review will be flagged with a
> 667 note. Mention is made below of "AACR2 headings not suitable for 
> RDA that need to be marked for review, e.g. headings qualified by 
> degree (Ph.D.)". As I understand it these fall under Phase 1 of Option
3:
> "Records whose 1XX is not suitable for use under RDA without review 
> (pre-AACR2, AACR2-compatible and certain AACR2 records)". The scope of

> "certain AACR2 records" is one of the things the Task Group is 
> reviewing, with particular reference to the content of $c subfields, 
> and subject to the next round of RDA change proposals to be considered

> by JSC, which may or may not broaden the scope of what is allowed in
RDA.
>
> Our main issue with the "NACO distribution pipeline" is the ability of

> our own system to digest changes on the scale that was originally 
> proposed. From the point of view of this large, national library, it's

> not the case that "changes to large numbers of records are not a 
> problem as long as the heading (1XX) itself stays the same". Any 
> change to an authority record in our system automatically reindexes 
> all our bibliographic records that use that authority, regardless of 
> whether the authorised access point has changed. This function can not

> be switched off or circumvented. Given the other processes that need 
> to be run constantly on the system, redistribution on the scale that 
> was originally envisaged would cause a major headache, to say the 
> least, which is why we greet the Implementation Task Group's revised 
> scenarios with some relief.
>
> 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 Joseph Kiegel
> Sent: 21 April 2012 00:18
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Alternates for the RDA conversion
>
> Comments from the Univ. of Washington, after discussion here:
>
> The original proposal from the task group has many strengths, as 
> outlined in the alternate scenarios:  headings not suitable under RDA 
> are clearly identified, all records that may receive 046s and 378s get

> them, and all records suitable for use under RDA are coded as such.
> These are goals worth achieving.
>
> It is important to acknowledge that the authority file is not only for

> human use but also for machine use.  The presumption voiced on this 
> listserv that catalogers can tell which headings are usable is not 
> true in a machine
> environment:  the computer will not know which headings are usable.
>
> As PCC plans to use the authority file in a linked-data environment, 
> it will be very important to populate the file with needed data 
> elements, and the
> 046 is one of them.  It would be unfortunate to fall back on partial 
> and manual addition of this field, when it can be done 
> programmatically by machine.
>
> The authority file also needs clear coding on the status of records.
> That is, AACR2 headings suitable for use under RDA need to be coded as

> RDA.  A situation where machines need to ignore coding and make 
> assumptions about what it "really" means is fragile and does not 
> provide a sound basis for the authority file.  The library world may 
> be able to limp along with this, but when these data are exposed on 
> the Web, records need accurate and current coding.
>
> We support the task group's original proposal and do not find any of 
> the alternate scenarios acceptable for the long term.  If an alternate

> scenario such as Alternate 3 is required in the short-term, it has to 
> be packaged with a specific plan to remedy its shortcomings.  The 
> "Left for the future"
> section of the scenarios document does not provide that plan.
>
> In our view, the real problem is the capacity of the NACO distribution

> pipeline.  It was adequate in the past, but not in today's
environment.
> Rather than discussing inadequate alternate scenarios, we would rather

> see the discussion shift to how the pipeline can be brought up to a 
> capacity that meets current demands.  This seems like a better 
> solution to the problem, and will allow the authority file to migrate 
> to the form it needs.
>
> In our view, a minimum capacity for the pipeline is 10% of the file 
> per day, which would be about 800,000 records/day.  This would allow a

> complete reload in 10 days, which is still a long time, but
acceptable.
> Surely future plans to "pour it into a new data structure" will 
> require this kind of capacity, so we may as well start now.
>
> From the point of view of a local library, changes to large numbers of

> records are not a problem as long as the heading (1XX) itself stays 
> the same.  We can load hundreds of thousands of records quickly if the

> only changes are added note fields or changes to coded values.
>
> Comments on specific alternates:
>
> Alternate 3:  it does not seem to cover AACR2 headings not suitable 
> for RDA that need to be marked for review, e.g. headings qualified by 
> degree (Ph.
> D.).
>
> Alternate 5:  this looks acceptable if it can be carried out in the 
> week described.  However, if pipeline capacity is an issue, we do not 
> understand how this is possible.
>
>
>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging 
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gary L Strawn
>> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 3:20 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: [PCCLIST] Alternates for the RDA conversion
>>
>> The PCC Acceptable Headings Implementation Task Group has received a 
>> number of comments suggesting that the work plan devised by the 
>> earlier PCC Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings for 
>> manipulating the LC/NACO Authority File for use under RDA involves 
>> the
>
>> unnecessary re-issuance of too many records over too great a span of 
>> time.  The present task group has devised a number of alternate 
>> scenarios, described in the attached document.  (This document is 
>> also
>
>> available from the Task Group's download site:
>> http://files.library.northwestern.edu/public/pccahitg)  All these 
>> scenarios involve the performance of RDA-related mechanical changes 
>> described in documents previously distributed by the task group
> ("Dept."
>> becomes "Department", for example), but differ in other changes to be

>> made, and the schedule on which the changes are performed.
>>
>> The task group invites public discussion of the merits of the 
>> original
>
>> plan and the proposed alternates, and is happy to entertain 
>> suggestions for yet other possibilities.  Even if you've expressed an

>> opinion on this matter before, please do so again, as the audience 
>> may
>
>> now be a bit broader.
>>
>> Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc.
>> Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL
> 60208-2300
>> e-mail: [log in to unmask]   voice: 847/491-2788   fax:
> 847/491-8306
>> Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit.         BatchCat version:
>> 2007.22.416
>>
>