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
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