No longer a cataloger.  But even before RDA, we saw a lot of this.  What is happening is this (go back to that meeting several years ago about bibliographical control sponsored by LC and it technical service division, about everybody, including vendors being contributors).  Note that we have two vendor submissions, Baker and Taylor and Yankee.  This not a DLC/DLC record at all; DLC simply rubber stamped it.  And I would submit that this will continue at a faster pace as more and more people adopt WMS; you can order through WMS and when the books are sent, the library's ownership symbol is added to the holdings list.  WMS is extremely tempting to library directors who see their job as keeping costs down (don't want to do that expensive cataloging thing).  And so now records created by vendors and rubber stamped by DLC are the norm.  No need to do authority work.  Is there?

Gene Fieg

On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 7:29 AM, Yang Wang <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I was just curious and did a quick search (by combining “& [name of a language]” in uniform title with “rda” as a keyword) in our local database. I found quite a few such headings indeed. Apparently it’s not just that some catalogers are re-using old headings, but that they continue creating new ones.


Here’s an example: (OCoLC)890792787. It has been updated several times since 2014. There are 100 holding institutions in GLIMIR cluster. The authorized access point itself is not established, clearly, but the fact that the mistake is there, having escaped the notice of so many pairs of eyes, is little short of embarrassing.




From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]GOV] On Behalf Of Robert M. TALBOTT
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 7:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Updating UT/expression language authorities


Hello folks:


I've been seeing a lot of RDA records with 130 [title].$l [language 1] & [language 2] authorities attached of late.  I can't tell you how sad this makes me.


My sense of the matter of updating these records is to create a new authority for each language if it doesn't yet exist in the AF, and request cancellation of original.  Is this correct?


I looked high and low for official documentation, and the closest I came was a PCC list thread from 2013, which confirmed my assumption, but the smart money says, "Ask first, then do the work."






Bob Talbott

Principal cataloger/Hebraica cataloger

UC Berkeley

250 Moffitt

Berkeley, CA 94720

If they're too small for court, they're probably shorts.

If they're long and advanced, you're looking at pants