First, let me thank the PCC membership for their thoughtful input on the undifferentiated personal names discussion.  The open forum held at the ALA Anaheim meeting was fruitful and interesting, and the Policy Committee was impressed with the breadth and detail of the feedback.

The Policy Committee met by phone call and set the following direction:

*        PCC does not want to proliferate undifferentiated personal name records in the LC-PCC Name Authority File going forward;

*        There is no urgency to split apart undifferentiated records that already exist, but we do need to define new practices to achieve differentiation and implement them (PoCo will begin work soon on guidelines);

*        A project to split apart undifferentiated records in the retrospective file would best be accomplished after we have experience with those new practices;

*        We need to change our paradigm from name headings/records defined by unique text strings to unique identities, and to define a path from one to the other; and

*        We will form a Task Group to define that path, to identify the issues and barriers to achieving it, and make recommendations for next steps to move us toward this new paradigm.

A draft charge for that Task Group follows below.  PoCo is asking for expressions of interest in serving on this Task Group, noting the particular stakeholders (at the bottom of the charge) that require representation.  If you are interested In participating in the work of this Task Group, please send an email message to the PCC Chair at the address below specifically addressing the role, skills, and/or expertise that you would bring to this group.  PoCo will begin the appointment process on September 4, 2012.  Comments on the charge are also welcome.

The PCC Task Group on the Creation and Function of Name Authorities in a Non-MARC Environment is charged to:

1.      Think broadly and practically about identities (personal, corporate and family) in both an RDA and a linked data environment and how they function within it.  What will that environment look like?  What are the key conceptual differences from the current authority record environment?

2.      Identify the key changes that are needed to current authority record systems, structures, and guidelines to support the new environment, including the impact on OCLC/NACO normalization rules.

3.      Prepare a report to describe (as specifically as possible) those key changes, problem areas and proposed solutions.  What are the barriers to moving forward, and what can PCC do to eliminate them?  What can NACO catalogers do now to move in this direction?

If the group has any questions about scope, process, or any other issues, please address them to the PCC Chair, who will consult PoCo as needed.

The primary goal of this Task Group is to provide guidance to the PCC Policy Committee to make the best decisions for changing current authority record practices.

Time Frame:
*        Appointment of group:  September 2012
*        Deadline for report to be submitted to PCC Policy Committee:  March 15, 2013
*        PCC Policy Committee will review by April 5, 2013 and post for OpCo review
*        OpCo will discuss at meetings May 2-3, 2013
*        PCC Steering Committee will discuss OpCo outcomes and prepare an announcement for distribution on PCCLIST and posting on PCC web site, requesting public comments by ALA Chicago, June 2013
*        Implementation date:  The TG will recommend an implementation strategy and timetable

Chain of Reporting:   PCC Policy Committee

Task Group Members:  Will include members from the following communities:  PoCo liaison, Standing Committee on Automation liaison, OCLC/VIAF, Authorities vendor, ILS vendor, NACO, CJK NACO/CEAL, the Bibliographic Framework initiative, and ISNI.

Linda Barnhart

Head, Metadata Services Department

UC San Diego Libraries and

   Chair, Program for Cooperative Cataloging, 2011-12


[log in to unmask]