Print

Print


Hi Stephen,


I believe the procedure is to pick whichever record has the correct 100, copy the 670s or anything else that's needed from the record that will be reported for deletion to the correct record, add the 670 "Duplicate record, reported for deletion in favor of [LCCN] ([date])" to the incorrect record, then save both NARs, and report the problem.


You don't have to have both records with a matching 100 before reporting one as a duplicate, and OCLC allows matching 400s and 100s.


I agree it's great to get these cleaned up quickly!


Karen




From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Robert Maxwell <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: October 31, 2018 6:12 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] getting around heading dups when updating NAF
 

Sorry, I was remembering the warning message I get when I find duplicates and add the 1XX form from the record to be canceled as a 4XX in the record to be kept—Connexion warns you that it matches a heading in another record, but then lets you replace the record anyway. I hadn’t read carefully enough that this situation involved a 1XX matching another 1XX.

 

Bob

 

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

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 3:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: getting around heading dups when updating NAF

 

When I tried it just now, OCLC blocked my attempt to replace the earlier record because its revised 100 matches the later authority's 100. It's not just a note in passing when I "check record"--it's a block.

 

Do others get different results?

 

Stephen

 

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 3:50 PM Robert Maxwell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Stephen,

 

My memory may be faulty, but I think that although OCLC’s validation program objects, it still allows you to replace or create the record in cases like this. At least that’s my memory of similar situations. Then I just ask LC to delete the other record.

 

Bob

 

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

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 2:38 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: getting around heading dups when updating NAF

 

Occasionally when I'm setting up duplicate NAF authorities to be merged by LC, there are cases where a preferred 1XX is in conflict with an existing 1XX or 4XX on another authority. For example, architectural model maker Ricard Pedrero Coderch was initially established as "Coderch, Ricard Pedrero", but later evidence favors "Pedrero Coderch, Pedrero".  That name too was established several years later, clearly for the same person. OCLC's audit objects if I try to change the initial authority's 100 to match the preferred form in the later authority's 100. Each 100 form is also matched by a 400 on the other authority. (I think the two records got in because the later one was batch loaded from Sky River bypassing OCLC's audit for duplicate headings. I've seen the same issue happening between LC authorities, also batch loaded.)

 

I could just ask LC to do all the updating, but I'd like to save them repeating work I've already done. 

 

I could ask LC to delete the non-preferred authority first before I make any changes, but I'm impatient and not sure I'd hear back from LC when the way is cleared to update the other one.

 

I could modify the 100 on the authority to be deleted (e.g., add a plausible $c qualifier), but knowing that authorities can remain in NAF pending deletion for some while, I'd rather not make the non-preferred one more inviting.

 

I could vandalize the access points on the authority to be deleted to break the conflict (e.g., add "...$c TO BE DELETED") but that seems unwise, especially if systems have linked to that authority,

 

I could add a subfield $c to the 100 of the authority to be retained as part of the 100 change, but once the other authority is deleted, the addition will appear unnecessary, which could be seen as setting a bad example.

 

Does anyone have a best practice for these situations?

 

(And if anyone has conclusive evidence that Ricard Pedrero Coderch and his co-author Pere Pedrero Carbonero (same NAF problem) should indeed be entered under Pedrero and not their last name element, that would be welcome too. Our resource for them is unavailable and after much searching, I'm relying on the evidence of national library authorities from France and Spain, not directly observed author usage to determine which heading should be preferred.)

 

Thanks,

 

Stephen

--

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


 

--

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