Print

Print


John, you left off the rest of the sentence, which was "with even the most minimal efficiency."  And also bear in mind that the context for my statement was Cutter's objects.  In the traditional catalog (that is, the old-fashioned kind that would actually group things by an author under a heading for that author) the user could assume that everything by "this" John Smith would be under one heading, and everything by "that" John Smith would be under a different heading.  With undifferentiated headings, we eliminate the ability to have things grouped under different entities—different John Smiths are all treated the same, as far as the heading goes.  That means the user has to look at much more data to figure out if a certain resource is by the John Smith they are looking for.  That reduces the efficiency drastically.  (And you should know certainly well that my use of the word "absolutely" was not meant in the philosophical sense.)

 

Kevin

 

From: John Gordon Marr [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 12:54 PM
To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: Kevin M Randall <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: RE: Tom Watson/Most Useless Name Qualifier

 

Kevin wrote: “unique AAPs are absolutely required to meet the user's needs”

 

When and how did the users decide that?  J

 

There are no “absolutes” in the real world. I would not mind a “working hypothesis” approach, if the substance of the hypothesis can and will be tested, but no “absolute” (or “blind faith”) is subject to testing.

 

Cheers!

 

John G. Marr

Collections

Zimmerman Library

University of New Mexico

Albuquerque, NM 87010

[log in to unmask]

 

         **"I really like to know the reasons for what I do!"**

                                             Martha Watson

 

Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but sharing is permitted.

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 11:25 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Tom Watson/Most Useless Name Qualifier

 

Ted, are you saying that creating a unique string for an individual entity might be "trying to do too much in the NAF"?  If so, I'd say that is the opposite direction we've always been trying to move.  Or has it been decided that Cutter's object to "show what the library has by a given author" doesn't apply anymore?  (Well, according to most of the "discovery" interfaces being foisted upon us nowadays, much of Cutter is essentially thrown out the window, with serendipity being the primary means of discovery...)

 

Until we are able to use identifiers (such as authority record IDs, whatever) to bring the authority and bibliographic metadata together for the user, unique AAPs are absolutely required to meet the user's needs with even the most minimal efficiency.

 

Kevin M. Randall

Principal Serials Cataloger

Northwestern University Libraries

Northwestern University

www.library.northwestern.edu

[log in to unmask]

847.491.2939

 

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ted P Gemberling
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 11:54 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Tom Watson/Most Useless Name Qualifier

 

Ed,

Yes, this epitomizes the problem I brought out with non-date qualifiers for current people, impermanence.

 

I appreciate the point Paul Burley made about production pressures. I think that point is probably an undercurrent of a lot of other objections that have been raised to spending too much time trying to get headings right. (I am using “right” as meaning not just following the rules, but maximally appropriate for identifying the person.) I wonder if this problem is also a result of the decision to create all “differentiated” headings. As Ben kind of hinted, if Jenny Barrett authored “An exploration and critique of the use of mental health information within refugee status determination proceedings in the United Kingdom,” her name is already effectively “differentiated” by the 245 even if the 100 is only Barrett, Jenny. If libraries, especially PCC libraries, didn’t have pressure to create controlled access points for all authors, this is a problem we just wouldn’t have until some confusion about her identity came up. Then we could call her to get her dates or, if she refused them or had already passed away, we could add an appropriate qualifying phrase. By that time, we might have more evidence about what phrase is appropriate than we have now.

 

Could we be trying to do too much in the NAF?

 

Ted Gemberling