Print

Print


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
>