Actually it might be more likely that the idea of unique access points will go the way of the dinosaurs.  In a world of linked data and identifiers, it might not be necessary to have a display form of an access point that says everything we know about an entity (person, corporate body, etc.).  All these things we add to access points are somewhat subjective, usually not predictable by the user or other librarians, often language-dependent, and sometimes result in long, ungainly access points.

------------------------------------------
John Hostage
Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
Langdell Hall 194
Harvard Law School Library
Cambridge, MA 02138
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Steven Dunlap [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 12:20
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Greek deities and mythological figures - subfield c?

Since we no longer need to conserve space on a catalog card when creating bibliographic records I wonder whether someday the "only to break a conflict" rule will go the way of the dinosaurs. In my work it usually causes more problems than it solves as it requires going back to bib records to change headings (whoops, I mean preferred names) at times. Given the mania to name corporations and organizations after persons, real and imaginary, why not set up a given person with enough data to prevent the conflict? Given that this also provides the user with helpful information and greater context, what's the harm?
 
Am I missing something? (Not a sarcastic comment but a real question, what am I missing?).
 
 

 
 
Steven Dunlap   [log in to unmask]
Head, Technical Services and Systems
University Library - Golden Gate University
536 Mission Street, Room M-53
San Francisco, California 94105-2968
Phone: 415-442-7247
 
>>> "Moore, Richard" <[log in to unmask]> 11/27/2013 7:24 AM >>>

Hello Mark

 

Thanks. Iím familiar with this because I drafted the proposal ;-) These are now (or will be) core elements, but this only means that they will be recorded at the element level (MARC 21 368). We may still be limited, as you note, to adding it to the access point in cases of conflict. I donít know for certain what happened to my optional addition at 9.19.1.7, but weíll have to wait for the final text of the revisions in January, to see what will actually be in the revised text. 

 

Itís unfortunate that, having finally got these elements into RDA last year, we might hardly ever use them in an authorized acess point. We didnít intend them to be used just to break conflicts; they were designed primarily to identify, contextualise, and enable the conversion of data from the LCSH authority file.

 

Regards

Richard

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark K. Ehlert
Sent: 27 November 2013 14:38
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Greek deities and mythological figures - subfield c?

 

Moore, Richard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Unfortunately, itís my understanding that the proposal was completely reversed at JSC, so that no ďother designationĒ would be included in an access point except in case of conflict.

 

Last weekend I walked through the various proposals discussed by the JSC, reading over what they reviewed and the outcomes given by John Attig on his blog.  Attig wrote: "6JSC/BL/13: Revision of RDA 9.6. This proposal seeks to adjust the core requirements for the element Other designation associated with the person, as well as the instructions for including this element in authorized access points representing persons.  The proposal was approved[!], with minor wording revisions.  In addition, the JSC approved LC suggestions for revisions to (a) the lists of core elements at 0.6.4 and 8.3; and to (b) the instructions for constructing authorized access points at 9.19.1.1."

(Source: <http://goo.gl/nN59Hr>)

 

The LC response (here: <http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-BL-13-LC-response.pdf>) includes, among others, a revised 9.19.1.1 on adding to access points fictitious character monikers to names not conveying the idea of a person.  The same response had a revised 9.19.1.2.6 to give such monikers in cases of conflict, with the option to give it even when there is not conflict (much like dates or fuller forms of name); whether this particular bit won out, I don't know.  The changes in LC's 0.6.4 and 8.3 core element lists tells us that these elements are core for fictitious persons, and also used for conflict breaking, mirroring the access point guidelines above.  (The LC wording of these core instructions leaves out the "conveying the idea of a person" clause, however).

 

BL's original proposal and the responses are here: <http://www.rda-jsc.org/working2.html#bl-13>

 

Nothing's official until the JSC makes their pronouncements, of course, but I wanted to point this out.

 

--
Mark K. Ehlert                 Minitex
Coordinator                    University of Minnesota
Digitization, Cataloging &     15 Andersen Library

  Metadata Education (DCME)    222 21st Avenue South
Phone: 612-624-0805            Minneapolis, MN 55455-0439
<
http://www.minitex.umn.edu/>

**************************************************************************
Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk
 
The British Libraryís 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