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 (voice)

+(1)(617) 496-4409 (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                      

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



 

--

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