Print

Print


I agree that what LC has proposed is not compatible with the standard it
proposes to follow.

Maybe LC should be looking at a different encoding model--ISNI or VIAF--for
LCDGT as a way to manage access terms that vary over time rather than by
source without designating one as the sole AAP.

Stephen

On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 7:04 AM Deborah Tomaras <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> I agree that having multiple terms listed as "related" but with one not
> valid anymore for actual usage (but coded as if for actual usage!) causes
> multiple problems for the LCDGT vocabulary's development, and for multiple
> library catalogs and authority files.
>
> For example:
>
>    - Most discovery layers don't allow patrons to see authority records.
>    So having a "for retrieval purposes" note within an authority record that
>    will be invisible to most users will not clarify anything in actual catalog
>    searches done by patrons. One could argue that libraries simply should not
>    assign, or should reclassify, affected terms in their local catalogs to
>    eliminate this issue. However, discovery layers ingest metadata from so
>    many different streams that I doubt it would be possible to locate and
>    eliminate problematic terms entirely--especially if conflicting terms are
>    still "valid" in authority files.
>    - Many discovery layers have facet display limits, so having former
>    terms that should be see-fors taking up valuable shelf space is detrimental
>    for search faceting purposes.
>    - This could also cause potential DEI issues, if terms get updated
>    from offensive or outdated versions, yet the old terms remain as "for
>    retrieval purposes" entries and so are still visible in library catalogs
>    for patron viewing and usage (for example a possible change from "Blacks"
>    to "Black people").
>    - For libraries that rely on automated authority control and updating
>    of terms, having two conflicting preferred terms will cause these authority
>    updates to fail. Libraries would then have to manually update terms, and
>    repeatedly handle "ambiguous" authority headings reports in their local
>    systems.
>
> If the purported reason for Library of Congress's decision to follow this
> non-ANSI procedure is, as it appears, to be based solely on issues related
> to their individual catalog ("due to the size of LC's catalog and issues
> related to updating the OPAC"), then I agree with previous posters that
> it's not sufficient justification for sidestepping standards and causing
> problems in everyone else's catalogs. I would urge Library of Congress to
> reconsider, and avoid having multiple, conflicting terms authorized
> simultaneously in the LCDGT.
>
> Best,
>
> Deborah Tomaras
> Metadata and Resource Management Librarian
> James A. Cannavino Library
> Marist College
> 3399 North Road
> Poughkeepsie, NY  12601
> [log in to unmask]
> (845) 575-3000 x2408
> (she/her/hers)
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on
> behalf of Diana M. Brooking <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 21, 2021 5:06 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] LCDGT Announcement
>
>
> *[EXTERNAL EMAIL]*
>
> But delays in implementing BFM could be the case for any change of
> preferred term in any library.
>
>
>
> Should the structure of a widely used controlled vocabulary be dependent
> on the BFM of any particular library, even if that library is LC?
>
>
>
> ****************************
>
> Diana Brooking
>
> Cataloging Librarian
>
> University of Washington Libraries
>
> Box 352900
>
> Seattle WA 98195-2900
>
>
>
> 206-685-0389
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> *On
> Behalf Of *Ed Jones
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 21, 2021 1:55 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: LCDGT Announcement
>
>
>
> I expect the LC practice is simply a pragmatic one applicable only in
> cases where a change of preferred term entails a large amount of LC
> bibliographic file maintenance. If so, then the existence of two preferred
> terms for any given concept will always be temporary, persisting only until
> the related BFM is completed. (At least that’s how I read the LC
> announcement.)
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> *On
> Behalf Of *Adam L Schiff
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 21, 2021 5:47 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [PCCLIST] LCDGT Announcement
>
>
>
> While it is exciting to finally know that the moratorium on LCDGT will be
> lifted soon, and backlogged proposals will be processed and decided upon, I
> have some serious qualms about the model for former terms that LC is using,
> and I don't believe that it is in accordance with ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005
> (R2010).  The standard is at
> https://groups.niso.org/apps/group_public/download.php/12591/z39-19-2005r2010.pdf
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.niso.org_apps_group-5Fpublic_download.php_12591_z39-2D19-2D2005r2010.pdf&d=DwMFAw&c=qwHaVVscXk_NBWd7DQFk0g&r=vZdb4enrYPbal23bD_gETA&m=A1C-PoZNQmXU6xq64Y3fKkmuVdWDGNSqtZ_ZtiE5ryM&s=gfsoMbMW9x9wu0CGJNRHOhqYOWRg3ojnxU0oat3XDEw&e=>
> .
>
>
>
> Section 6.2.3 of ANSI/NISO says:
>
>
>
> A History Note is used to track the development of terms over time. These
> notes provide important guidance for researchers who are interested in a
> topic covering many decades. It is especially important to indicate when
> and how a term has changed over time. If appropriate, the history note may
> also include the date discontinued, the term that succeeded the term,
> and/or the term that preceded it. History Notes are frequently marked by
> the abbreviation HN.
>
>
>
> Assuming from this example that Venetian windows was once an authorized
> term, the example shows it as a Used For term.  This is further
> substantiated by 11.3.1.2:
>
>
>
> 11.3.1.2 Modification of Existing Terms
>
>
>
> Indexers and searchers should be able to propose modifications to existing
> terms or their relationships, explaining the rationale and supplying
> supporting documentation for the proposed changes. Like candidate term
> nominations, such proposals may be communicated electronically or via
> printed forms. Such proposed changes should be considered by the controlled
> vocabulary editor and board, using the criteria for term selection in
> sections 6 and 7. If a term is modified, the date of the change should be
> recorded in the history note (see section 6.2.3), and a USE reference
> should be made from the old form to the new form. If the controlled
> vocabulary is used in an indexing system, the date on which an old term was
> last assigned should be included in the history note. If the relationships
> are modified, a record of the old ones should be maintained in the history
> note as well.
>
>
>
> (I have highlighted the most important sentence above).
>
>
>
> Based on my reading of the ANSI/NISO standard, I don't think these
> existing LCDGT terms follow it:
>
>
>
> Having two separate authorized terms for the same concept does seem to me
> a violation of ANSI/NISO.  My reading of the standard would result in
> Oceanians being a UF on Pacific Islanders, and there could also be history
> note in that record stating when the change from earlier form Oceanians was
> made.
>
>
>
> I also don't think it serves users in a faceted retrieval system to be
> presented with multiple boxes to select for the same concept:
>
>
>
>
>
> Each group should be distinct.  If a user sees a box for an earlier form
> and misses another box further down the list for a later form, they will
> miss retrieving items that they would have wanted to see.
>
>
>
> Adam L. Schiff
>
> Principal Cataloger
> University of Washington Libraries
>
> (206) 543-8409
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on
> behalf of Cannan, Judith <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Monday, September 20, 2021 1:50 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* LCDGT
>
>
>
> PCC members,
>
>
>
> I am pleased to announce that on October 1, 2021, LC will start a new
> model for the LC Demographic Group Terms (LCDGT).  I have shared this
> message with SAC and I will be sending it to SACO.  This announcement will
> also be posted on LC website and the PCC website.
>
>
>
> Judith Cannan
>
> Chief, PTCP
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Cataloging, Metadata, & Digitization Services
University of Minnesota Libraries
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