If you change an authorized access point, and do not make a variant access point for the previous, erroneous access point, how are our machines going to know to change to make the automatic change? From our experience with automated authority control, a significant percent of the unmatched headings are due to exactly that failure.
Finding or not finding the person or entity by catalogers or users in this case isn't the point so much as making our data machine-friendly. This is an old PCC practice that is ripe for change. If we need coding or a relationship indicator to provide special explanation for these headings, then let's do it. I can see no justification for not providing a VAR for a former AAP on an authority record.
Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. | Senior Cataloger, Folger Shakespeare Library | [log in to unmask] | 202.675-0369 | 201 East Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 | www. folger.edu | orcid.org/0000-0001-5848-5467
I agree with Will Evans that we need solutions for the present while keeping an eye to the catalog of the future. As to how important accurate headings are to patrons, I've always said that when we're doing our job well, our work is totally transparent. Unfortunately it's also true that many of our errors are also invisible -- something like a Rumsfeldian unknown unknown -- and when a patron fails to find something our library does in fact hold, he/she is likely to conclude simply that the item isn't available, not that the cataloging is faulty. Yes, a change in death date probably wouldn't result in failure to find but an underlying philosophy that highly valorizes accuracy will in the long run probably lead to superior retrieval. If new discoveries in scholarship are reflected in our headings (or at least in our authority records), so much the better.
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Amy Turner <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Like many catalogs, Duke’s includes a link for reporting errors. I have found that in the rare cases when a change is requested for a heading, there is about a 90% likelihood that the person making the request is the author in question. Patrons aren’t beating down the doors for more accurate headings. They find what they want (or not) and go on. The catalog we labor over is an invisible tool. Yes, I lot of what we do is essential to its functioning, but a lot isn’t.
> A case could be made that it would be better to leave the heading uncorrected until linked data makes the issues of cross references and bibliographic file maintenance obsolete
Hmm. Should our patrons have to wait that long? Should we? Yes, look ahead, but we need solutions for the here and now.
National Endowment for the Humanities
Chief Librarian in Charge of Technical Services
Library of the Boston Athenaeum
10 1/2 Beacon Street
Boston, MA 02108
Thanks Paul. Off on a tangent, let’s compare “egregiously incorrect” with the wording about the change in the death date “no longer thought to be correct.” We’ve had a lot of discussion on this list about when to correct a heading, and this one falls into a grey area. There is no conflict, and there are sources supporting two different death dates. Cataloger’s judgment comes into play here. A case could be made that it would be better to leave the heading uncorrected until linked data makes the issues of cross references and bibliographic file maintenance obsolete.
Adam is correct that a 4XX variant would not be made when correcting a “big typo” in a 1XX field. The phrase “egregiously incorrect” is the somewhat more formal NACO phrase for “big typo.”
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
I think in most cases no 400 is made at all in this situation, suppressed or not. But I will defer to NACO Coop folks at LC, and wait to hear what they suggest.
In such a case (big typo) is a 400, suppressed, useful for automated processes performing flips?
I agree with Everett.
I think there’s a difference between your example and something like this:
Correcting the access point Smith, John, $d 1920-9185 to Smith, John, $d 1920-1985
In a case like this, there is a simple typo in the access point, which needs to be corrected, but I would not make a 4XX for the form that had the typo.
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Julian Everett Allgood
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 3:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: death date changed; 400?
Mary Jane :
Hi -- in a situation like the one you describe in which you are changing what was a previously valid 1XX access point, I believe it would be a disservice not to provide a 4XX with the previous form, and subfield $w nne.
It seems to me, there is every probability that the earlier "valid" form of the LC/NAF NAR with the incorrect death date has made it downstream into Bibliographic (and Authority) files within some library ILS systems beyond the national NACO file. That being the case, providing the 4XX cross-reference will allow systems to machine process the flip and will also prevent cataloger confusion.
And yes, when I have provided such NACO cross-references in the past both the DCM Z1 instruction and the NACO Personal Names FAQ always give me pause. My thought has always been though that if the cross-reference I am making was a previously distributed NACO 1XX access point that even one library catalog may have used in a Bib or Authority file, then the cross-reference is necessary.
Isn't that the altruistic point of cataloging for the greater good (i.e., PCC Cataloging)?
my two cents,
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Cuneo, Mary Jane <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hello Collective Wisdom,
While working with a personal name record, one of our catalogers discovered that the death date is no longer thought to be correct. A later edition of the initial reference source has amended the date accordingly, and our cataloger found another relatively recent reference source to corroborate as well. She has changed the date. Here’s how the record looks now (the relevant parts). 670-3 and 4 are new:
no 2005006024 Tamada, Gyokushūsai, ǂd 1856-1919 [death date was: 1921]
670 Jinbutsu refarensu jiten. Meiji, Taisho, Shōwa hen, 2000: ǂb p. 1273 (Tamada Gyokushūsai 2-dai; b. 1856 d. 1921; storyteller active during the Meiji and Taisho periods; famous for Tatsukawa bunko)
670 Nihon choshamei, jinmei tenkyoroku, 2002: ǂb p. 1267 (Tamada Gyokushūsai 2-daimei; b. 1856 d. 1921; storyteller; real name is Katō Manjirō; pen name Gyokurin)
670 Jinbutsu refarensu jiten. Meiji, Taishō, Shōwa (senzen) hen.II,2000-2009, 2010: ǂb p. 1190 (Tamada Gyokushūsai 2-dai; 1856-1919)
670 20-seiki Nihon jinmei jiten = Major 20th-century people in Japan, 2004: ǂb page 1599 (Tamada Gyokushūsai 2-daimei; 1856-1919; storyteller; real name is Katō Manjirō; pen name Gyokurin)
DCM Z1, under 4XX (General), says not to make a “4XX access point” from the old form when it contains a date recorded in error. The NACO Personal Names FAQ #12 says not to add the “inaccurate form” as a “cross reference.” However,
--in this case the death date was not recorded in error at the time; it reflected what was in reference sources
--a 400 would be helpful for machine processing of flips
--the 400 could be suppressed if it were felt patrons should not see it, so it would not generate a “cross reference” or an “access point”
--maybe patrons would benefit by seeing such a cross reference, since it represents more just than a cataloger’s error
Mary Jane Cuneo
Serials cataloging and NACO
Information and Technical Services