Print

Print


Jesse,

 

I think both subfields aim to point to something unique. It’s the nature of what goes in the subfields that is different. The problem with the VIAF ID is that it is created by machine algorithm and the cluster that it points to can change over time as other authority records are added to or removed from the cluster.  That could result in the cluster describing a different entity than you originally thought.

 

John

 

 

 

From: Jesse Lambertson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2020 16:34
To: Hostage, John <[log in to unmask]>; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [External] [PCCLIST] Incompatible authorities?

 

John et al

 

Funny - I was JUST chatting about this issue to my colleague the minute this e-mail dropped in my box.

 

I agree and want to push this a little further.

 

a URI in the $0 sense is a 1-to-1 relationship to a UNIQUE identifier.

Clearly, the $1 in the VIAF sense could possibly be a 1-to-many relationship (which is why it's good to include the $0 and $1 if possible).

 

While it is true that a $1 may be a URI to a cluster ID, it is NOT a URI to a UNIQUE ID.

the word 'unique' is the semantic focus here : unique here means 1 as I understand it.

 

The OED defined 'unique' as: Of which there is only one; single, sole, solitary

 

Key difference.

 

Thank you John for bringing this up

 

Other thoughts?

 

 

 

 

 

 


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Hostage, John <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2020 15:19
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] [External] [PCCLIST] Incompatible authorities?

 

Aren’t the MARC format (http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/ecbdcntf.html) and by extension, OCLC, confused about the nature of ISNI and ORCID?  These identifiers don’t identify an authority record or a label; they identify a real world object, so why are they used as examples of things that go in $0?

 

It is even more peculiar that VIAF IDs are given as examples of RWO URIs.  It’s not clear that a VIAF ID identifies much of anything besides a temporary cluster of authority records.

 

------------------------------------------

John Hostage

Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger

Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services

Langdell Hall 194

Harvard Law School Library

Cambridge, MA 02138

[log in to unmask]

+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)

+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Charles Croissant
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2020 16:03
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] [External] [PCCLIST] Incompatible authorities?

 

hello Ann,

 

I recently contacted Jay Weitz at OCLC over this very same issue. Here's what he wrote back:

***

There’s some explanation of what happens with subfield $0 and controlling headings in the BFAS “Control Subfields” chapter under subfield $0 (https://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/controlsubfields.html). 

 

Use of OCLC's control headings functionality in the 1xx, 7xx, and 8xx descriptive access point fields and in the 6xx subject access point fields will remove all instances of subfield ǂ0 in the case of names and subjects controlled to the LC/NACO and LCSH authority files. For access point fields where the control heading functionality is available related to other authority files, the control headings functionality will remove all instances of subfield ǂ0 other than the one linking to the authority record to which the access point is controlled.

 

Use of OCLC's control headings functionality is preferable to manually entering subfield ǂ0 in cases where the access point can be controlled to a particular authority file. You may enter other applicable identifiers in subfield ǂ0 such as the International Standard Name Identifier (ISNI) or the Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) in access points which are not controlled to any associated authority file record. However, such identifiers will be removed if the access point is subsequently controlled to a record in an associated authority file.

 

As official guidelines on the uses of subfields $0 and $1 continue to be developed, there will undoubtedly be some evolution in how all of this interacts in terms of Data Ingest, WorldCat record display, and output options.

***

 

I think the crucial sentence here is "Use of OCLC's control headings functionality is preferable to manually entering subfield ǂ0 in cases where the access point can be controlled to a particular authority file."

 

What I took away from this was, at this point, the preferred course of action is to control the heading in OCLC and let the subfield $0 disappear. A subsequent email from Jay seemed to confirm that.

 

hope this helps,

Charles Croissant

Saint Louis University

 


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Ann Heinrichs <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2020 2:47 PM
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [External] [PCCLIST] Incompatible authorities?

 

Hello -

 

In record #1089997797, the editor's name in the 700 field is followed by a $0 ("Authority record control number") and a URL, which goes to an LC authority record. His name, however, is perfectly controllable in OCLC in the usual way, but when I control it, the $0 and URL disappear.

 

Are OCLC authorities and LC authorities incompatible, such that they cannot coexist in the same field? If so, I need to be educated on this matter.

 

Ann


--

Ann Heinrichs

Metadata/Cataloging Librarian | The Paul Bechtold Library

5401 S. Cornell Ave. | Chicago, IL 60615 | ctu.edu