Please ignore my last message, the meaning of which must remain tantalizingly obscure. The consequence of having too many open messages on my desktop at once and unwittingly replying to the wrong one.
-----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Diane I. Hillmann Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 12:50 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Authority records per RDA for persons I participated in a discussion last week where the issues of email privacy (in particular, but other personal info was implied) came up--the discussion was about author profiles, not that far from name authorities. I think this is an issue that we do need to think about--and the notion about how far to look and what to be sensitive about is important for our credibility. The world we will be operating in as the future unfolds will be much more open than we're accustomed to, so these issues will have a different context. But, all email is not personal (some bookjackets have email addresses set up by publishers for particular authors, and we don't assume that those addresses are 'personal', for instance), and when it appears in an obviously public context, using seems safe enough. Another point to consider is that the privacy issues are quite different in Europe than they are in North America, so our practices need to reflect a broader context. Diane On 3/28/11 1:03 PM, Gene Fieg wrote: > One can get all kinds of stuff by searching Google. > I once made a type of search that brought up the names of my father > and mother (both dead) with their social security numbers. > There are way too many clever people out there willing pick someone > else's pocket if they can get to the infomation needed. We should not > be supplying that information. > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Adam L. Schiff > <asch...@u.washington.edu <mailto:asch...@u.washington.edu>> wrote: > > This information is frequently available in the resource that is > being cataloged. I don't think that any of us will be spending > time researching this information just to add it to an authority > record. For elements that are needed to distinguish between > entities with the same name, we might make an extra effort to > search further or contact that entity, but for completely optional > elements (like address) I have no doubt that most libraries' > policy will be only to record it if readily available in the > resource. If it is published in a resource, I don't see how it is > invading someone's privacy to record it in an authority record. > > Adam Schiff > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Adam L. Schiff > Principal Cataloger > University of Washington Libraries > Box 352900 > Seattle, WA 98195-2900 > (206) 543-8409 > (206) 685-8782 fax > asch...@u.washington.edu <mailto:asch...@u.washington.edu> > http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff > <http://faculty.washington.edu/%7Easchiff> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, Gene Fieg wrote: > > Just got through chapter 9 on Persons. > Do we really intend to put that kind of information in the > authority record, > home address, e-maill adress, etc. in the record? > Isn't that really invading a person's sense of privacy? And > when we call up > prospect persons to be in the NAF, what do we tell them if > they get wind of > chapter 9 > > Authority records are for identification, between work and > person in this > case, and we should not add information that does not add to that > identification. It is not a miniature Who's who. > > > > -- > Gene Fieg > Cataloger/Serials Librarian > Claremont School of Theology > gf...@cst.edu <mailto:gf...@cst.edu> > > > > > -- > Gene Fieg > Cataloger/Serials Librarian > Claremont School of Theology > gf...@cst.edu <mailto:gf...@cst.edu>
