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
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
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
Law Library · University of California · Irvine
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?
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Ian Fairclough <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
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" (see 670 section of this document). In this document, "database" refers to whatever file is being used for searching and cataloging.
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
Cataloging and Metadata Services Librarian
George Mason University