Print

Print


1. There should be enough of the life documented so that you can avoid future conflicts and determine quickly whether or not the creator of a new work is or is not the one in the NAR.  We should always add changes in jobs if they are on the title page (as is common), birth dates if they become available, and their education background (since along with birth dates they are never going to change).

2. The changes in recent years involve putting data in the NAF that could be used for other purposes, so we should get away from the idea that the reference staff and public are not users of authority data.

3. We need to remember that the universe of users includes persons of all perspectives, not just believers in  true blue politically correct ideology.  It is in our professional interest to have a single cataloging system that serves everyone whether they bi-coastal liberals or heartland conservatives, not to mention the rest of the human race since our cataloging is available globally.

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]] On Behalf Of Still Thinking
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 10:10 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Just a thought on the name authority file and RDA (was Re: [PCCLIST] n 85387872 (Pres. T.))


While I believe the 670s added to Trump and others' NARs are totally inappropriate and should be removed, well, with RDA it seems name authorities are now becoming mini-wiki articles based on the enthusiasm some members exhibit here with those (IMHO) at-present-useless 3xx's and the 678 tag.



Decades ago when I first became a cataloger, it was drilled into my head that the name authority file was not intended to document a 1xx's life. The name authority file was created by, and intended for, catalogers to distinguish one John Smith from another, one Smith Company from another. Period.



As far as I know, catalogers are still the primary consultants of the name authority file, not the public, not the reference staff, not the acquisitions staff.


Recently here there have been discussions about adding a 3xx to point out that someone was gay (who did not prominently assert that himself) or to add something like "Asian American actor" to the 1xx. Some of the 3xx's added to relate one work to another (e.g., based on, movie version of) or other relationships belong (IMHO) in the bibliographical record as a note, not the NAR--we are catalogers, not bibliographers. And, yes, I gather, sometime in the future, some seem to think the name authority file is going to be a huge public success story (replacing Wikipedia, no doubt?). Angh, I think. Why reinvent the wheel? Seems too much like horse-and-buggy manufacturers trying to compete with the automobile (i.e., Internet/Wikipedia, etc) by gussying up the product a bit.


But, if the name authority file is indeed intended to document a person's life, well, then why not include the good and the bad about a person, perhaps in the 678, if you want a short biography of someone's life? If so, then the 670s added by  the NNU staffer are not totally inappropriate.



Just a thought.



  Sam Andrusko (retired LC cataloger, speaking only for himself)









________________________________