This situation is also confusing to me. In addition to the documentation, two facts about the environment we work in complicate the picture:
1. At LC, catalogers do not search OCLC at all. Their own catalog is their "catalog of record." In NACO training more than ten years ago, I think that I was told that PCC members could chose their own "catalog of record."
2. For many years, OCLC did not allow member libraries to change records unless they had holdings added. This means, that if you wanted to add a distinguishing element to a heading for which you didn't have a record in your catalog, you could theoretically add it to the AR and not the bibliographic record. This does not seem advisable.
OCLC has loosened up on their rule, but many of us have quite enough to do maintainging authority control locally without cleaning up OCLC. In an ideal world, this would be different, but that's a whole different post.
The whole thing becomes simpler if you do not require an AR for every heading in your catalog. In case of doubt, set up the heading to the best of your ability, but do not create an AR.
Hope this helps,
Duke University Libraries
First let me say that I am starting to train a couple of catalogers to create personal name NACO authority records using RDA. So I have been going back through all of the recent emails and looking on PCC and PSD websites to make sure that I am going to teach the latest best practices and to hopefully be prepared for all (or at least most) of the nitty gritty questions I’ll be asked. I wish that I could wait until the RDA version of the NACO training manual was written but I need to start the training now, not later this spring or summer. So I am pulling information from the AACR2 NACO training program (the 5 day training that we all went through) and adding it to the bridge training for RDA NACO, and throwing in best practice information that has developed since the bridge RDA NACO training was recorded.
All of that is to introduce my question. In the 5 day AACR2 NACO training under searching OCLC and what constitutes a conflict (Day 2 slide 132, April 2010). The heading of the slide is “Conflicts : Four Situations” the last bullet point is “New 100 NAR vs. Bibliographic 100 or 700 form for which no NAR exists” The trainer manual explains this point as: “4th bullet: This is a conflict, but it does not require action from you. Catalogers are not required to break conflicts with names on bibliographic records for which no NARs yet exist. This is a rare situation, which generates questions. The point to remember is that you do not have to change the existing bibliographic record access points just because they conflict with a new NAR.”
This seems to state that a bibliographic 100/600/700 without a NAR does conflict with a new NAR 100 that you are establishing, but you don’t have to do anything about it.
However, when I was reading through the Personal name FAQs on creating NARs I found question 17:
1. What should a NACO cataloger do if there are unestablished headings for other persons in the file in which the cataloging is conducted (e.g., OCLC or SkyRiver) which conflict with the heading being established and there is no additional information to differentiate the names?
There are three options open to NACO participants in this situation:
1. Do not create a NAR for the heading (BIBCO participants--do not code the bibliographic record "pcc")
2. If possible(and local policies/resources allow) create unique NARs for each of the other headings in the files
3. Create an undifferentiated NAR (AACR2 22.20) to include all the unestablished names (this means some research was performed and option 2 could not be applied)
This seems to contradict the above information and states that bibliographic headings without NARs are in conflict with a 100 that I am trying to establish and that I must resolve the conflict or create an undifferentiated authority or not establish the new NAF even if the new NAF does not conflict with any other NAF.
The only guidance I can find in the RDA Toolkit is:
“Make the additions specified at 22.214.171.124[log in to unmask]" width="31" height="13"> even if they are not needed to distinguish access points representing different persons with the same name.
The LC-PCC PS has:
Differentiating Authorized Access Points for Persons
LC practice/PCC practice: Include the date of birth and date of death if available in the authorized access point for a person when creating a new name authority record. If an addition is needed to differentiate the authorized access point for one person from the authorized access point for another person, apply cataloger judgment when choosing to add one of the following (not listed in priority order) to the authorized access point being established: period of activity of the person, fuller form of name, and/or profession or occupation.
If there are no additions readily available to differentiate the access point in the new authority record, make an addition to the existing authorized access point.
I would like to have clarification on this point. Is it currently true that newly established NARs cannot be in conflict with bibliographic 100/600/700 fields that are in existence at the time of the creation of the new NAF?
Resource Management Services Branch
State Library of North Carolina
4641 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-4641
Office: (919) 807-7451 Fax: (919) 733-1843
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law "NCGS.Ch.132" and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized state official.
[log in to unmask]" width="200" height="82">[log in to unmask]" width="200" height="87">