Print

Print


Much as i'd love to clean up everything, there are some practical 
difficulties.   It's one thing to clean up records which had no 
authority control from the beginning.  However, we're not supposed to 
change foreign language records, so those headings can't be brought into 
conformance with NAF.  They are often under authority control from their 
originating agency anyway.   If cleanup involved making NARs for persons 
on bib records for publications which your library doesn't own, then 
you've got the problem of verifying usage.  The 245$c, if there is one, 
doesn't always conform to current cataloging rules so you can't really 
rely on that.  It's sometimes possible to find a book scanned in Google 
Books or find a dissertation online somewhere so you can confirm the 
usage but that's not always the case.  And even if your library owns the 
book, is it worth your while to have it paged from storage or make a run 
to the stacks?  I often see unqualified headings with several identities 
among the associated bib records, sorting that out could take days 
assuming you could even find qualifying information for each of the 
identities, and if you looked a few months later, there would be more 
records reappearing under the unquaified form.  Our regular NAF work 
already takes up a lot of time, it's harder to justify a time black hole 
for work that's of minimal value to your institution.

greta de groat
Stanford University Libraries

On 3/20/2017 8:05 AM, Christopher Thomas wrote:
>
> The LC catalog is under the control of a single agency.  OCLC 
> Worldcat, on the other hand, is a cooperative database containing 
> records of widely varying quality.  Many OCLC contributors do not 
> bother with authority control at all. NACO contributors do update some 
> WorldCat records as they do authority work, and there is nothing to 
> prevent that. However, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect NACO to 
> clean up all of OCLC’s messes.
>
> *Christopher Thomas, M.L.S.| Electronic Resources and Metadata Librarian*
>
> (949) 824-7681 | fax (949) 824-6700 | [log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> Law Library · University/of/ California · Irvine
>
> www.law.uci.edu/library <http://www.law.uci.edu/library>
>
> *From:*Program for Cooperative Cataloging 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Noble, Richard
> *Sent:* Monday, March 20, 2017 7:55 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] resolving conflicts in WorldCat while doing 
> NACO work
>
> Who will pay for the time spent doing this?
>
>
> RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
>
> BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
>
> <Richard_Noble@Br <mailto:[log in to unmask]>own.edu 
> <http://own.edu>>
>
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Ian Fairclough <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>     PCCLIST readers,
>
>     The question whether conflicts in authorized access points other
>     than those found in LC's catalog should be resolved came up in
>     discussion recently.  I'm firmly in favor of resolving conflicts
>     within the database that a cataloger is using, which for many of
>     us will be OCLC WorldCat.  This view is supported in DCM Z1
>     Introduction:
>
>     In constructing authorized access points, variants,  and recording
>     information, NACO participants and LC catalogers not working in
>     the LC Database may make use of all records on the file against
>     which the searching and cataloging is being done:  OCLC, British
>     Library, SkyRiver, etc.  NACO participants may choose to use only
>     LC records found on the file being searched.  For LC catalogers
>     working in the LC Database, the file is the set of records
>     comprising the "LC database" (see670 section of this document
>     <http://desktop.loc.gov/search?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=dcmz1670&hash=670>).
>     In this document, "database" refers to whatever file is being used
>     for searching and cataloging.
>
>     My comments:
>
>     When a personal name access point is unqualified, and the same
>     access point is used as an undifferentiated heading for various
>     people, it is appropriate to disambiguate them within the file
>     used.  Other NACO participants may differ with this view, and
>     their viewpoint is supported by the second sentence in that
>     paragraph.  Many catalogers will likely be subject to the
>     direction of a local policy and/or supervisor.
>
>     However, Module 7 “Making Changes to Existing Name and
>     Work/Expression Authority Records” slide 8 “Why Update an Existing
>     NAR ?” has: To change an existing _authorized_ access point to
>     _resolve a NACO conflict._  Recent discussion focused on the
>     phrase “NACO conflict”, which seems to be taken as intending that
>     a conflict is to be resolved only if it occurs between NACO
>     authority records.  That interpretation prevents NACO work from
>     being undertaken with a view to resolving conflicts within
>     bibliographic databases such as WorldCat.  The rationale for
>     resolving conflicts in WorldCat is (1) that it helps the users of
>     that database, and (2) when catalogers encounter a situation that
>     can be improved by their attention to it, they should be allowed,
>     if not required, to do so. The same might be said for other
>     bibliographic databases.
>
>     Perhaps the phrase “NACO conflict” might be reviewed and replaced
>     in favor of one which permits a broader application on the part of
>     NACO contributors other than LC catalogers.
>
>     Sincerely - Ian
>
>     Ian Fairclough
>
>     Cataloging and Metadata Services Librarian
>
>     George Mason University
>
>     703-993-2938 <tel:%28703%29%20993-2938>
>
>     [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>