Print

Print


Everyone,

I'm extremely pleased to release the Report of the PCC Task Group on the 
Creation and Function of Name Authorities in a Non-MARC Environment to 
you for comment.This Task Group, chaired by Stephen Hearn, was asked to 
think broadly and practically about identities in both an RDA and a 
linked data environment.Key to the report would be the identification of 
changes needed to our current authority record system to support this 
new environment and proposed solutions to moving forward.The report is 
divided into two parts, the first deals with alternatives to 
undifferentiated personal name authorities and the second to name 
authorities in a non-MARC environment.

Earlier this month, both OpCo and PoCo had an initial discussion of the 
report.  As you read through the three options presented in Part 1, we 
would like you to consider a fourth option as well.  Our discussions led 
us to support investigating the use of the subfield |0 (subfield zero, 
defined in MARC21 as "Authority record control number") in the authority 
file to be able to use the LCCN when no other text element is available 
to differentiate the authorized access point.  This differs from option 
2 in that, while it would be included in the 1XX of the authority 
record, the LCCN would not be a parenthetical qualifier to the formal 
authorized access point, but rather a subfield used to distinguish 
identities that share the same text string.  Because the LCCN would not 
be an integral part of the authorized access point itself, display 
within the local system would be optional. In pursuing this option, a 
number of tangential issues would need to be investigated such as the 
NACO normalization rules, the proposed use of the |0 in authority 
records through the MARC Advisory Committee, impacts on authority 
vendors, and impacts on the ILS.In addition, OpCo and PoCo discussed 
various ways to break up undifferentiated name clusters and associated 
bibliographic records with the correct name form.  There did not seem to 
be an automated way to do this safely and the work that would be 
required to do so manually is not feasible in the current environment. 
Any name, of course, can be extracted from these clusters at any point 
on an as needed basis.

Part 2 of the report is the most far reaching.We are currently 
considering how best to involve you in this discussion and hope to have 
an announcement to make at the PCC Participants meeting this summer in 
Chicago.Thanks again to the members of this Task Group!They had a very 
daunting charge and the report will help us move forward in uncharted 
waters.Please share your comments with us by July 12^th through the link 
provided below.



Report on Authorities in a non-MARC Environment:http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/RDA%20Task%20groups%20and%20charges/ReportPCCTGonNameAuthInA_NonMARC_Environ_FinalReport.pdf

Survey to comment on the report:https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/PZQQPFF  


Philip

-- 
Philip E. Schreur
Chair, Program for Cooperative Cataloging
Head, Metadata Department
Stanford University
650-723-2454
650-725-1120 (fax)