Stephen
Just to add that the different treatment of occupation terms in 374 and
in 100 $c, in your suggested change to DCM:Z1, is consistent with the
change to 9.3.1.3 in 6JSC/LC/22, which forms part of the RDA changes to
be published on 9th July. This makes a disctinction between the
specificty of the date recorded at the element level in 046 (which is
controlled in LC/NAF by ISO 8601), and what is recorded in the access
point. The preamble to the proposal says:
"LC believes, at the element level, that the most specific date should
be recorded when readily available; a more general date (year alone) may
still be used in the authorized access point."
http://www.rda-jsc.org/working2.html#lc-622
The same issue arises with 368. The LCSH term "Congresses and
conventions" works perfectly well at the element level, but isn't
necessarily appropriate in the authorized access point. Element level
recording has a different purpose from the authorized access point.
Regards
Richard
_________________________
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library
Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
From: Moore, Richard
Sent: 03 July 2013 07:02
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: [PCCLIST] LCSH in name authority records
Stephen
I agree with all that you say, especially your proposed clarification to
Z1. And as we discussed in the Non-MARC Authorities Task Group,
authorised access points aren't going to go away tomorrow.
Regards
Richard
_________________________
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library
Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: 02 July 2013 22:55
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] LCSH in name authority records
"I really do think it's important to note that RDA is designed to yield
best results by means of linked data, controlled vocabularies and RDF,
and by thinking beyond pre-coordinated MARC access points."
Actually, I think it's both. RDA 9.16.1.3 refers to "recording a term,
in the language and script preferred by the agency creating the data,
indicating the class of persons engaged in the profession or
occupation." That doesn't specify singular or plural, though all the
examples for 9.16.1.3 are in the singular, as are the examples at
9.19.1.6 on constructing access points. While I agree that eventually it
won't be necessary to construct unique, informative name strings to
differentiate persons, I can still see value in being able to construct
a grammatically appropriate string as an option for display. That said,
being able to use standard vocabulary terms in the established plural
forms to express the classes to which a person belongs for better
linking, faceting, and retrieval is also clearly important.
My suggested revision would be to change DCM Z1 374, which now reads:
Prefer controlled vocabulary, such as LCSH or MeSH, recording the source
in subfield 2. For consistency, capitalize the first term in each
subfield $a. When terms do not come from a controlled vocabulary, use a
singular form."
to
Prefer controlled vocabulary, such as LCSH or MeSH, recording the source
in subfield $2. For consistency, capitalize the first term in each
subfield $a. When terms do not come from a controlled vocabulary, use a
plural form in 374 without subfield 2. When recording a profession or
occupation term in 100 subfield $c, use a singular form."
In other words, split the ambiguity uncomfortably present in RDA and the
current DCM Z1 instruction into separate data elements, recognizing that
whenever occupation/profession needs to be recorded (now) in an
authorized access point as a core element under RDA (i.e., "for a person
whose name consists of a phrase or appellation not conveying the idea of
a person. For other persons, profession or occupation is a core element
when needed to distinguish a person from another person with the same
name"), it will be found in the $c as a singular term. Let that be the
MARC data element for satisfying RDA 9.19.1.6. For RDA 9.16.1.3, retain
the existing DCM wording to specify that the "term, in the language and
script preferred by the agency creating the data" should be in the
plural in 374 for LC-PCC, reflecting a term from or following the
pattern of LCSH or MeSH.
Stephen
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Moore, Richard <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
John
I see no problem, because the authorised access point and the
element-level terms serve different purposes. We have pre-cordinated
access points because MARC and our systems currently need them. They
serve as hooks to hang bib records on, and help identify a person to a
catalogue user. But RDA is independent of MARC, and the real meat of the
authority record lies in the element level recording of metadata about
the person, using controlled vocabularies that can be subject to data
linking. So from a post-MARC point of view, the authorised access point
can be regarded as a temporary device, and I believe it was so conceived
by the authors of RDA.
You might be interested to read the section on this in the BL Guide to
RDA Name Authority Records, in the RDA Toolkit. It's called "Relation
between 374 and 100$c". There is also a section called "Relation between
368 and 110".
RDA wasn't written with any particular vocabulary in mind for these
elements, so the examples use plain terms. If you worked at the DNB you
would be using terms in German, so I don't see a problem in NACO
participants using terms in the plural, from an appropriate controlled
vocabulary.
The authors of RDA didn't "choose to adopt a different approach" from
PCC. There is no conflict or difference of approach. Apart from anything
else there is considerable overlap of personnel. What PCC discovers in
its practical application of RDA is often fed back into RDA, as you can
see in the changes to be published next week - for example the use of
the preferred name in MARC field 373.
The bjection to editing terms from LCSH into the singular is that they
no longer reflect the controlled vocabulary they are from. In the
fullness of time these will be represented by URIs, so the notion of
editing them becomes irrelevant.
I really do think it's important to note that RDA is designed to yield
best results by means of linked data, controlled vocabularies and RDF,
and by thinking beyond pre-coordinated MARC access points.
Regards
Richard
_________________________
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library
Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 <tel:%2B44%20%280%291937%20546806>
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of john g marr
Sent: 01 July 2013 21:50
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] LCSH in name authority records
Do you see any problem with the "controlled vocabulary" terms used in
fields 368 and 374 being different from terms used in name heading
qualifiers (e.g. "Non-governmental organizations" vs. "Non-governmental
organization" and "Poets" vs. "Poet") and representing groups rather
than individuals?
It isn't clear why the authors of RDA chose to adopt a different
approach than LC and NACO, and visa verso (I've remarked on the
difference --RDA preference for singular terms "derived from" LCSH
vocabulary-- in an earlier post), or at least I do not see the need for
different approaches, especially for different uses. In fact, some
preferring one approach or the other may not think the difference is
entirely obvious at first glance.
At least DCM:Z1 allows either, creating another level of
inconsistency:
[e.g. 374:) "When terms do not come from a controlled vocabulary, use a
singular form."
The problems I mention (along with logic, when referring to single
entities), could be resolved by simply having DCM:Z1 revised to read
"Use a singular form" period.
What possible objections could be raised, except to say "But that's
not the *present* [LC/NACO] practice?"
Cheers!
J. Marr
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013, Moore, Richard wrote:
>
> Dear colleagues
>
>
>
> With apologies for cross-posting.
>
>
>
> After the recent discussion on the SACO list concerning LCSH proposals
for new terms needed in name authority records, and PSD's response, I'd
like to develop this case.
>
>
>
> When I reviewed the use of controlled vocabulary in LC/NAF earlier
> this year, 49% of 368, 372 and 374 fields had a source given in $2,
> and of those, 95% were LCSH. 100% of controlled vocabulary used by the
BL was LCSH, and 94% of controlled vocabulary used by LC was LCSH (LC
and the BL between us are responsible for around 40% of new LC/NAF
records).
>
>
>
> LC have provided some guidance in DCM:Z1 on the use of LCSH in NARs.
> Since we began creating RDA NARs at the BL in 2011, we have had many
discussions with our own cataloguers, which resulted in further guidance
to be found in the BL Guide to RDA Name Authority Records (RDA Toolkit,
Global Workflows).
>
>
>
> This illustrates that LCSH has emerged strongly as the controlled
> vocabulary of choice, in LC/NAF name authority records. That is
> understandable, as our cataloguers are familiar with it and need no
further training, and desirable as it promotes consistency within
LC/NAF, and with controlled vocabulary in bibliographic records for
linked resources. It's efficient for us, as our local copy of the LCSH
file is linked to our bibliographic database, and can quickly be
consulted.
>
>
>
> We have found LCSH suitable to the task. The only significant issue
> has been not with its structure but with gaps in its vocabulary.
> "Kingdoms" was the first proposal intended to fill such a gap, but it
was designed to be compatible with bibliographic LCSH usage, and
literary warrant was adduced as well. We have not proposed any change to
the structure or rules of LCSH.
>
>
>
> Interestingly, the authority used as a pattern "Republics" has no
> usage or literary warrant given. LCSH is not a pure thesaurus, but
> records terms used by the Library of Congress in the past, and terms
proposed by SACO institutions as needed. LCSH rules and patterns were
not designed from scratch; the SHM is the result of an exercise in
bibliographic archaeology conducted by Lois Mai Chan and others.
>
>
>
> As a result, LCSH is inconsistent in structure across subject areas,
> and often contains terms that are less than ideal. However, it is the
system that it is most efficient for us to use. The same objections
raised to its suitability for authority records can be (and have been)
made in respect of bibliographic records.
>
>
>
> Suggestions have been made for other thesauri that could be used, or
> that might be developed. When I began my career at the British Library
> in 1991, the Authority Control team was putting the finishing touches
> to a subject system called COMPASS (Computer-aided subject system),
that used terms mainly from Precis, arranged in a fresh thesaurus from
which faceted strings were created. Theoretically, it was much clearer
and more consistent than LCSH, but we dropped it because its potential
users found it more effective to use LCSH, as the prevailing standard.
>
>
>
> 22 years later I find myself in the odd position of commending LCSH to
> its creators. I hope that PSD will consider accepting proposals for
> new LCSH needed in name authority records, as long as the proposals
are consistent with LCSH principles for bibliographic usage. In
principle anything that has a name authority record belongs to a class
of things, or persons, that can also be written about.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________
>
> Richard Moore
>
> Authority Control Team Manager
>
> The British Library
>
>
>
> Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
>
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> **** Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk
>
> The British Library's latest Annual Report and Accounts :
> www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html
>
> Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book.
> www.bl.uk/adoptabook
>
> The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
>
> **********************************************************************
> ***
>
> The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be
> legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you
are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the
[log in to unmask] : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or
copied without the sender's consent.
>
> The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the
> author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library.
The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of
the author.
>
> **********************************************************************
> ***
> Think before you print
>
>
John G. Marr
Cataloger
CDS, UL
Univ. of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
** Forget the "self"; forget the "other"; just consider what goes
on in between. **
Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.
--
Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Technical Services, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
160 Wilson Library
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Ph: 612-625-2328
Fx: 612-625-3428
