A word of caution on abandoning undifferentiated names. When we were doing the regional IFLA meetings for the International Cataloguing Principles, the Chinese told me how glad they would be to have a capability to use undifferentiated names, as their catlaoging code didn't allow them. Adding qualifiers to every name caused a lot of problems with hundreds of authority records for what was in fact the same person using different professions or writing different things over time - each being established separately - they wanted the ability to use undifferentiated names so they could collocate them until they had more concrete differentiating information. - Barbara Tillett
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Myers, John F. Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 10:56 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Fwd: [RDA-L] Undifferentiated personal names: call for community discussion In the main, the thrust of the discussion paper is an obvious implication of the ideas in FRAD and of the authority record changes in RDA. It is a necessary development as we move from construction of headings to creation of robust, element-configured authority records as the locus of establishing identities. My concern for this proposed environment is the adequate presentation of differentiating information, however tenuous, for such undifferentiated records. This would facilitate the quick determination by catalogers of a) which prospective authority record corresponds to an identity to be associated with a given bibliographic record, and b) whether establishment of another undifferentiated authority record might be required. One such solution might be retooling our current authority displays so that something akin to OCLC's Brief List display (currently configured for bibliographic records) becomes available for authority records too. For example, expand an authority search's truncated list entry for "Doe, John. (3)" to provide the 3 entries: Doe, John. [author. Book of topic A. 1956.] Doe, John. [editor. Book on topic B. 1999.] Doe, John. [performer. [SR]. Music to remember. 2010.] (Caveat, the above examples are made up with absolutely no coherent regard for current authority record practice or potential RDA authority information.) It is also possible that a new bibliographic framework, which could provide a comprehensive overall picture of entities in the various FRBR entity groups rather than bifurcating our records into bibliographic and authority silos, may address this concern in a better manner. Whatever the solution turns out to be, I would encourage exploration of this question of presentation, as we progress towards implementation of individual records for name entities with non-unique headings. John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College 807 Union St. Schenectady NY 12308 518-388-6623 mye...@union.edu<mailto:mye...@union.edu> Forwarded on behalf of the PCC Policy Committee. Please excuse duplication. Please cc c...@loc.gov<mailto:c...@loc.gov> on all responses. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [PCCLIST] Undifferentiated personal names: call for community discussion The Program for Cooperative Cataloging Policy Committee (PoCo) has been monitoring the discussion on various cataloging email lists over the past months and noticed a recurring topic of (and frustration with) authority records for undifferentiated personal names. We wondered whether this was a problem that we should tackle now, in conjunction with the imminent changes to the LC/NACO authority file to align it with RDA implementation. Even though this is not an RDA issue, we decided yes. Two PoCo leaders, Philip Schreur and John Riemer, volunteered to prepare a discussion paper, which is attached to this message and is posted on the PCC web site<http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/FAQ_PCC%20Day%20One%20for%20RDA%20Authority%20Records.doc>. We invite community comment on this discussion paper beginning now through June 22, 2012. The discussion will continue in person at the PCC Participants Meeting at the ALA Annual Conference in Anaheim. There are several options for you to provide input, and the PCC Secretariat has agreed to compile the issues for the discussion. To participate in this discussion, you may: (1) send your comments privately to the PCC Secretariat at c...@loc.gov<mailto:c...@loc.gov>; (2) post your comments publicly to one of the cataloging email lists, preferably PCCLIST, with a cc to c...@loc.gov; (3) voice your comments in person at the PCC Participants Meeting at the ALA Annual Conference in Anaheim in June. While PoCo members will be reading the comments, we will not be able to respond to each comment. We expect that the community comments in the coming months will help us prepare for and design the public forum on this topic at the PCC Participants Meeting, and will enable those unable to attend that meeting to participate. We are particularly interested in hearing from authorities and ILS vendors, and hope that providing this discussion paper now gives them time to think and react. We also welcome reactions from the international community, especially from CEAL, where we know this topic has particular impact.
