Thank you Gary. I knew you could do this and I will be more than happy to undertake the review of some of the 3, 194 records that do not have 2 670 fields and require manual review. I hope we can start ASAP. I know that various ‘clean up’ for RDA has already begun.  Perhaps a sample ‘acceptable’ record could be prepared and then the 3, 194 records divided among volunteers.

 

I also think the current practice should cease immediately and any work on undifferentiated personal names could begin the process of splitting these apart instead of adding to the 59,659 records. If I’m viewing RDA appropriately, we will be able to qualify many more names. Hopefully the RDA NACO training will be available soon.

 

Mary Charles

 

 

 

Indeed.  Since records susceptible to being split must contain at least two "Author of" (or similar) 670 fields, why not use the contents of those fields as $c in the 1XX field, and mark the new records as "requires review before able to be used under RDA"?  That would allow the split-up records to work well enough in current systems, and allow for something to be done more calmly in the future.  Subfield $0 could still be used in bibliographic records.  The meaning of 008/32 could be left alone for now, and the definition enhanced (or the position made obsolete) as the future becomes less murky.

 

I find 59,659 name records with 008/32='b' in the local copy of the LC/NACO authority file.  Of these, a surprising 3,194 do not have at least 2 670 fields that begin with a left square bracket, suggesting that they are not well-formed records; whether the error is in 008/32 or the 670s varies.  (Here are a few examples: n 00044405, n 78039508, no2003127114.  For this quick pass I did not also look for records that have 2 or more appropriate 670s, and yet have at least one 670 field before the first bracketed 670; bound to be some.)  No matter what fate befalls records with 008/32=b, the cleanup of ostensibly malformed records with 008/32='b' is a necessary project just waiting for someone.

 

I don't find any mention in the document of handling for authority records for name/title headings whose name portion is labeled undifferentiated.  If new headings are created (by sticking on $c) as undifferentiated records are teased apart, I assume that these name/title records would require individual review.  I find 2670 name/title records whose name part matches the 100 field in an authority record with 008/32='b'.  Not surprisingly, the correspondence of the titles between the two is not always obvious.

 

                670 fields:

[Added entry of Huntington library ...]

[Author of The truth about smoking]

                100 $t:

                                Young Indiana Jones and the circle of death

 

                670 fields:

[Author of The rebels]

[Co-editor of The Queensland house]

                100 $t:

                                Man who lost China

 

                670 fields:

[Author of Ku wan chih nan]

[Author of Shi guo feng tong jia zi kao]

                100 $t:

                                Gu wan zhi nan

 

(Yes, I understand full well what's going on in the last example.  *You* can do the programming for that one!)

 

 

 

All,

 

I must admit that my first reaction to this is disappointment. Again the cataloging community seems to be looking to the future, instead of implementing something that will work with our current systems, ASAP. I have been pushing for eliminating ‘undifferentiated authority records’ much longer than nine years, but what I am seeing in this paper would require new systems and new technology that again costs money. I’m concerned that by the time these suggestions are implemented we will all be retired or dead and authority control will be ‘history’.

 

We should allow for qualifiers that make each name (including geographic)  unique and we should not require libraries to invest in new technology.

 

My 2 cents,

 

Mary Charles Lasater

Authorities Coordinator (23+years)

Vanderbilt University  

 

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