It is true that authority work ‘s focus has been to remove ambiguity between sources, not to fully describe an entity, hence only adding birth dates if there are two identical names, only added death dates if there are two Nate Trails born in the same year, etc.
It is also true that the research and contextual info is often only found in notes, but on the plus side, now that we’re creating resources that instead focus on entities, it will be easier for catalogers to link to resources than to type out textual notes. That work can start now even without bibframe. We have begun to encourage catalogers to put LCCNs and other identifiers in separate fields, instead of writing out the titles or entity names (or in addition), so that systems can make those linkages already, in spite of the fact that the data was in marc. Terry Reese is building into his MARC converter an entity resolution process that turns an identifier into a link http://blog.reeset.net/archives/1775 .
MARC data, with the exception of the controlfields, was always intended to be consumed and understood by people, not machines, in the same way as early HTML was to be read by people, not understood by machines.
Network Development & MARC Standards Office
LA308, Mail Stop 4402
Library of Congress
Washington DC 20540
On 8/26/15 3:17 PM, Thomas Berger wrote:
LC records may be lacking explicit (especially death) dates, butthey usually contain a wealth of textual references which more oftenthan not reveal exact birth dates and other important contextualinformation (affiliations, notable works, places of birth, deathand activity).
You say "usually," but I see "occasionally." As an example, here's the LC authority record for me: http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n89613425.marcxml.xml, and if you can find "other important contextual information" you are a better reader than I am. Plus, when that information is available it's in a note field and can be quite cryptic:
Thomas, I think you are being overly optimistic about the state of authority data today. I agree that it can get better, but I don't agree that VIAF extracts much "data" -- it basically gets what you can get from a MARC name heading field, and adds in titles of works (which it gets from the WorldCat database). There may be more information in non-US authority files, but rather than relying on impressions it would be better to have a good study of available data.