Print

Print


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