Print

Print


PCCLIST readers,

Thanks for the responses. I'm inclined to agree that option 1, create a new NAR and report the existing undifferentiated one for deletion, is preferable, even though it entails further work for LC.  I wonder whether NACO catalogers can be allowed to do the work that DCM Z1 008/32 currently assigns only to LC catalogers, including deleting obsolete NARs: not only that they be allowed to do so, but also that the technical ability is available.

I confess again, I erred in another way (and no one so far has graciously corrected me!) in saying that the instructions "say to report when more than one identity or a single identity remains."  Had I said "cover the situations" rather than "say to report", my message would not be quite so erroneous.  I hope I've not caused confusion among the PCCLIST readership.  And for an edit to 008/32 I suggest changing:

"In order to facilitate machine processing of authority records (e.g., matching, linking), when only one identity is left on an undifferentiated personal name authority record ..."

to (something like):

"In order to facilitate machine processing of authority records (e.g., matching, linking), when only one identity or no identity is left on an undifferentiated personal name authority record ..."

-- with corresponding edits to the instructions for NACO and LC catalogers to insure understanding that the instructions apply when no identity remains.  That way, hopefully none of us will go in the direction of option 2, good intentions of saving work for LC notwithstanding.

Just a suggestion, folks!  I hope all is well.  Sincerely - Ian

Ian Fairclough
Cataloging and Metadata Services Librarian
George Mason University
703-993-2938
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>