Print

Print


For example, in LC's catalog under undated AAP "Jackson, Tom" (for the writer on resumes and hiring practices) there are many of his titles, but also titles belonging to an author of children's non-fiction series established as "Jackson, Tom, 1972-" (e.g., "Genetics minutes" and "Buildings and structures") and an unestablished performer credited on meditation recordings (e.g., "Living sound effects" and "Playhouse on the beach").

In our catalog any undated "Jackson, Tom" name entry is linked to the resume expert's authority, and any changes to that authority are inherited by our bib records. We consider representing the children's author as "Jackson, Tom" an error, but a lesser error than representing an author born in 1972 as "Jackson, Tom, 1932-"; but that's what would happen if the original authority were changed. Moreover, if a 400 with "Jackson, Tom" were added to the record whose 100 had acquired a date, any future records we load containing "Jackson, Tom" would be subject to the same change process.

What would happen in LC's catalog?

Following up on an earlier question--in OCLC, the value "h" in a 400 marked with "$w eh" for an earlier-established-heading-not-for-indexing is flagged as an error. So that's apparently not an option, though it's the solution MARBI came up with.

Responding to Michael Borries-- if a name access point includes a date and matches to an authority 1XX or 4XX, OCLC Connexion will control the heading with the matching authority when the Control All Headings (CTRL/F11) is used.  This function does not work for personal names consisting only of subfield $a. That's probably why in OCLC it's hard to find a "Jackson, Tom" access point controlled by the "Jackson, Tom" authority. 

Stephen

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Adam L. Schiff <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Actually, it’s considerably more of a pain for NACO catalogers outside LC to cancel a record.  We have to report it to LC, wait (sometimes a long time) for someone to handle our request, and then go back into OCLC to complete what needs to be done.  The workflow inside LC is much simpler, since LC catalogers have the power to delete authority records themselves.  We on the outside don’t.

 

Stephen Hearn also raised another issue that is pertinent.  He wisely counseled that we shouldn’t add a 400 with the name without a date to the record with the date.  That’s because it would cause all those other records for the other persons to flip incorrectly.  Changing the older record to add the date to the 100 field would have the exact same effect.  It would probably be better to individually change the bib records without the date to the correct form and leave the others alone.  Alternatively I suppose one could change the affected flipped access points that should not have had the date added to them.  Either way, manual work is involved.

 

--Adam Schiff

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]GOV] On Behalf Of Kuperman, Aaron
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 11:44 AM


To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Tom Jackson

 

Anyone who used the “Jackson, Tom” other than for the one on the differentiated authority record made a mistake.  The conflict is for the others.  I still don’t see how hard it would be to cancel the wrong record, and then add the date to the original one.  There are a considerable number of records linked to the original one (and a few that are probably mistakes).

 

Aaron Kuperman, LC Law Cataloging Section.

This is not an official communication from my employer

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]GOV] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 2:36 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Tom Jackson

 

Because in OCLC there are records with that access point that are for a different person.  NACO participants are allowed to consider conflicts in bib records even when there is no conflict in the NAF.  We know that LC catalogers don't look in OCLC for access point conflicts, but many NACO participants do and they are permitted to break those conflicts if they wish.  

 

Adam Schiff

 


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Kuperman, Aaron <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 11:26:30 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Tom Jackson

 

Why do you need to add a date (in the 100 field)  to the older record, unless there is a conflict?

I would have no trouble making such a change at LC.  I copy the 670 and 010 and 400 (from the former 100) to the original record, and zap the new one. It doesn’t seem logical for  OCLC to mandates such a change from what LC does.

 

Aaron Kuperman, LC Law Cataloging Section.

This is not an official communication from my employer

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]GOV] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 2:20 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Tom Jackson

 

The date would have to be added to the older record and OCLC probably won't allow that, because the 1XX would then be the same as another one that's already in the file (even though that one would then be cancelled).  Easier to keep the record with the date and cancel the older one without.  

 

Adam Schiff

 


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Kuperman, Aaron <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 11:13:15 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Tom Jackson

 

What’s the basis for preferring the newer record (that was needed in the first place) over the record that was established first.  --Aaron Kuperman, LC Law Cataloging Section.

This is not an official communication from my employer

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]GOV] On Behalf Of Michael Borries
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 11:08 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Tom Jackson

 

Would a 667 “Formerly also on NAR n  50027953 (as Jackson, Tom [no date])” work?

 

Michael S. Borries

Cataloger, City University of New York

151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor

New York, NY  10010

Phone: (646) 312-1687

Email: [log in to unmask]

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]GOV] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 5:25 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Tom Jackson

 

In the past we have used

 

667 Old heading: Jackson, Tom

 

as a way around using a 4XX to preserve a formerly established AAP for an entity when the 4XX option has problems.

 

Stephen

 

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Michael Borries <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Well, if I can’t give a 400 field for an undated Tom Jackson, and I can’t give a 500 field for an undated Tom Jackson, what do I do?  While it is true that there are *bib* records with undated Tom Jacksons who are not this one, the authority record was unique as it stood.  It only referred to one Tom Jackson, the one born in 1932.

 

Michael S. Borries

Cataloger, City University of New York

151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor

New York, NY  10010

Phone: (646) 312-1687

Email: [log in to unmask]

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]GOV] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 5:07 PM


To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Tom Jackson

 

Agreeing with Adam's comments-- RDA Appendix K.1 does allow for formulating new subfield $i texts, but the LC-PCC PS does not, at least when it comes to PCC records.

 

Also, the MARC Authority 5XX fields are for related established headings. NACO says that each 5XX should match to an established 1XX. So I don't think a 500 field could work in this case, unless the undated heading is established for yet another Tom Jackson. And even then, there'd be ambiguity in such a reference, which would be referring to both the 100 heading for another person and the former heading for the TJ born in 1932. That seems too ambivalent for a subfield $i.

 

Stephen

 

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Michael Borries <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Would a 500 field with the text “ǂi Earlier form of heading: ǂa Jackson, Tom ǂw r” work?  Is it allowed?

 

Michael S. Borries

Cataloger, City University of New York

151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor

New York, NY  10010

Phone: (646) 312-1687

Email: [log in to unmask]

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]GOV] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 3:26 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Tom Jackson

 

If OCLC included a substantial number of "Jackson, Tom" headings controlled by the n 50027953 authority, one could make a case for changing its 100 to "Jackson, Tom, 1932-" (with the related name/title NARs) and deleting the other authority to resolve the conflicts and take advantage of OCLC's automated updating functionality. But I haven't found any of the many relevant bib records controlled by the undated authority.

 

On the other hand, all the OCLC bib records for "Jackson, Tom, 1932-" are controlled by their authority, so in terms of dynamic relation to the bib file, that authority is more important.

 

What I wound not do is add "400 1 $a Jackson, Tom $w nne" to the more recent authority. In our Alma catalog, that would have the effect of changing all our "Jackson, Tom" headings to "Jackson, Tom, 1932-", which we would prefer not to see happen. Likwewise, eliminating the authority for an undated heading in a case like this would be better for catalogs like ours.  Changing the existing heading by adding the date would add the date willy-nilly to all our "Jackson, Tom" authors, since Alma automatically controls them (where OCLC does not.)

 

Stephen

 

 

 

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Robert Maxwell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I agree with you. Even though n 50027953 isn't coded as undifferentiated it might as well be since you have discovered that in the bib file the access point has been used to represent more than one person.

 

My opinion only, of course.

 

If you do choose to keep nb2011032496 and have n 50027953 canceled, don't forget that there are some related NARs that will also need revision.

 

Bob

 

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Michael Borries <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 10:41 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Tom Jackson

 

This seems to be my week for finding duplicates.  NAR n  50027953 is for Jackson, Tom, no dates, but still unique.  NAR nb2011032496 is for Jackson, Tom, 1932-.  These individuals are the same person, having written the same book, with a different title in Britain.  There seem to be a great many records with the heading Jackson, Tom [no dates], but some of these seem not to be the Tom Jackson who writes books on how to get a job.  But there seem to be far fewer records with the heading that includes the date.  Still, because there are bib records which have headings with no date for a different Tom Jackson, I think it would be better to use the heading with the date as the authorized form, even though the form without the date was established earlier.  What is the opinion of this forum?

 

Michael S. Borries

Cataloger, City University of New York

151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor

New York, NY  10010

Phone: (646) 312-1687

Email: [log in to unmask]

 



 

--

Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist

Data Management & Access, University Libraries

University of Minnesota

170A Wilson Library (office)

160 Wilson Library (mail)

309 19th Avenue South

Minneapolis, MN 55455

ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242



 

--

Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist

Data Management & Access, University Libraries

University of Minnesota

170A Wilson Library (office)

160 Wilson Library (mail)

309 19th Avenue South

Minneapolis, MN 55455

ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242



 

--

Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist

Data Management & Access, University Libraries

University of Minnesota

170A Wilson Library (office)

160 Wilson Library (mail)

309 19th Avenue South

Minneapolis, MN 55455

ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242




--
Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Data Management & Access, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
170A Wilson Library (office)
160 Wilson Library (mail)
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Ph: 612-625-2328
Fx: 612-625-3428
ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242