Print

Print


Becky

 

I think the key thing to remember is that even if a term does not
represent a Profession or Occupation (9.16/9.19.1.5), it is almost
certainly an Other Designation (9.6.1.9/9.19.1.7). "Writer on [topic]"
clearly does represent an occupation, provided there is evidence that
the person makes a habit of it. Other Designation is intentionally
broad: "an appropriate designation", so can be almost anything.

 

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 Culbertson, Rebecca
Sent: 09 January 2014 08:05
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Re: Updated DCM 008/32 -- Undifferentiated
Personal Names

 

Richard,

 

Another option that is certainly acceptable (at least to me!) is to use
$c (Writer on [topic]).  There are over 800 AAPs currently in the NAF.
Most of them seem to be coming from the Uk.  Tomorrow I will look at the
BL Guide to RDA Name Authority Records in the toolkit to see what else
you have come up with..

 

Becky Culbertson

 

Rebecca Culbertson

Electronic Resources Cataloging Librarian

California Digital Library

University of California, San Diego

915 Gilman Drive

La Jolla, California 92093-0175

Phone (858) 822-6415

Fax (858) 822-0349

[log in to unmask] 

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 11:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Re: Updated DCM 008/32 -- Undifferentiated
Personal Names

 

Stephen

 

"Author of ..." as a qualifier of last resort seems perfectly in scope
for 9.6.1.9 and 9.19.1.7 as an "Other Designation". We certainly
considered it to be when we proposed these instructions for RDA. For
what it's worth, the BL Guide to RDA Name Authority Records contains a
list of examples of terms used as qualifiers in NARs needing RDA Review,
that we considered acceptable, which includes "Author of the Old House
in the Square" (I'd emphasise that the list is ours, and not necessarily
endorsed by PCC). The last time I looked there were 9 such access points
in LC/NAF, coded RDA (and not all created by us!), so there is
precedent.

 

So, I think we are equipped to differentiate everyone that we want to.
Having said that, if association with a resource were the only
qualifying information available for the last author in an
undifferentiated record, I'd be tempted to establish the person without
it, in the hope that a later cataloguer would find a "better" qualifier
if one were needed. I remember that we suggested, in the task group,
that if these qualifiers were added automatically, the result might not
be coded RDA, leaving the access points for cataloguers to "improve",
but nonetheless making them unique in the mean time. That still seems
the best way forward, if we want to eliminate undifferentiated records
quickly, so we can move on to the next thing ...

 

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: 08 January 2014 22:49
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Re: Updated DCM 008/32 -- Undifferentiated
Personal Names

 

For some persons, the association with a specific resource is the best
and maybe the only differentiating piece of information we have. It
should be available as a qualifying attribute, explicitly or implicitly.
If implicitly is OK, then no additional investigative work would not be
needed. One could use the 670 to formulate a qualified access point if
needed, provided LC and PCC decide that phrases like "author of XXX"
could be used as a last resort to differentiate a personal name access
point.  

 

PCC was not happy with this suggestion when it reviewed part one of the
recent task group (which I chaired) on the future of authorities, but I
still don't see a better option for ensuring the uniqueness of all
personal name access points as those access points are currently
conceived.

 

Stephen

 

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:50 PM, John Hostage <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

Sometimes all that is known about that last identity is the title and
date of one work.  I wouldn't like to see a requirement that we do extra
research on a name that might not even be represented in our catalog and
that we had nothing to do with, just because we had information about
another person with the same name.

 

------------------------------------------

John Hostage 

Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger //

Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services //

Langdell Hall 194 //

Cambridge, MA 02138 

[log in to unmask] 

+(1)(617) 495-3974 <tel:%2B%281%29%28617%29%20495-3974>  (voice) 

+(1)(617) 496-4409 <tel:%2B%281%29%28617%29%20496-4409>  (fax)

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 12:56
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Re: Updated DCM 008/32 -- Undifferentiated
Personal Names

 

I've been struggling to formulate a rule that could be brought to bear
in the case of difficult to differentiate names. I agree with Richard
Moore that turning the last-entity-standing on an undifferentiated
authority into a unique, unqualified access point on a new NAR is short
sighted; but I don't see anything in the current instructions and
guidelines that would object to such a simple access point, provided
it's unique when established. So I'd suggest an alternative:

 

An RDA authority for a formerly undifferentiated personal name should
include at least one attribute which could be or could be modified to
become a differentiating qualifier.

 

The purpose of such a rule would be both to ensure the particular access
point could be differentiated if need be in the future and to ensure
that the community embraces a wide enough range of potential acceptable
qualifiers to make differentiation possible in all cases. We don't want
to replace the practice of undifferentiated name authorities with one
which in practical terms regards some names as unestablishable because
they have no acceptable differentiating qualifier.  Establishing
uniquely all the entities on existing undifferentiated name authorities
could be a valuable exercise for determining what the range of needed
qualifiers is, if we make differentiating them at least potentially with
an attribute a part of the work.

 

None of which is meant to preclude the idea of moving to differentiation
by ID rather than by text string; but even when differentiating by ID,
we'll want some consensus on what information it takes to consider an
entity with its metadata to be usefully differentiated.  We have to have
more than a name and an ID to begin to know who someone is and isn't.

 

Stephen

 

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Frank, Paul <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Richard, 

 

Yes, it is fine for you (or any other NACO cataloger reading this
message) to create differentiated records for the last two identities
represented on an undifferentiated NAR, and then simply report the
undifferentiated NAR for deletion. This is a good option if there is
qualifying information available for that last remaining identity. 

 

Catalogers should exercise their own good judgment in deciding whether
to create differentiated records for the last two identities, or to
report that last identity to [log in to unmask] for LC to create the NAR.
Either option is ok.  

 

Paul

 

Paul Frank

Acting Coordinator, NACO and SACO Programs

Cooperative Programs Section

Cooperative and Instructional Programs Division

Library of Congress

101 Independence Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20540-4230

202-707-1570

[log in to unmask]

 

 

 

 

From: Moore, Richard [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 3:05 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc: Frank, Paul
Subject: RE: [PCCLIST] Re: Updated DCM 008/32 -- Undifferentiated
Personal Names

 

Paul

 

"NACO catalogers: 

 

* Assure that the undifferentiated NAR only contains information
relevant to the single identity remaining (e.g., 670s) 

 

* Add a 667 field to the undifferentiated NAR:

 

667 ## $a Last identity on undifferentiated record; reported for
deletion. 

 

* Report the undifferentiated NAR for deletion to [log in to unmask] ; LC will
create a new replacement NAR and delete the old record" 

 

Thank you for this clarification. This is much easier, when the final
identity can not be qualified.

 

However, when we are faced with two remaining identities on an
undifferentiated NAR, and have qualifying information for both of them,
it would make sense for us to create undifferentiated, qualified NARs
for both of them, and simply report the undifferentiated NAR for
deletion, with no need for LC to create a new replacement NAR. It seems
imprudent to leave one name unqualified, simply because it is the last
to be removed from the undifferentiated NAR. The undifferentiated NAR
arose in the first place because the name is a common one, and we'll
only end up having to qualify it when the next one comes along. Do we
have this option?

 

 

Thanks

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]                             

 

 

 





 

-- 

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





 

-- 

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