After considering the recent discussion on the PCC list of the
discussion paper The Future of Undifferentiated Personal Name Authority
Records and Other Implications for PCC Authority Work, the BL has
decided not to create any further undifferentiated NARs for NACO, nor to
add any further
/ Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: 02 April 2012 20:29
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Undifferentiated Personal Names
One issue that has not yet been brought up in this discussion has been
the recent revision
Mary Lasater said:
That is the NACO practice and has been for many years. We always add
the date, if known. However, we do not require or encourage the
cataloger to look for the date.
Giving the date at the outset could save more cataloguer time down the
troad than it would take to find it. In
of authority control.
Mary Charles
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 12:24 PM
To: Lasater, Mary Charles
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Fwd: [RDA-L] Undifferentiated personal names: call for
Mary Lasater
@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Tillett, Barbara
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 12:48
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Fwd: [RDA-L] Undifferentiated personal names: call for
community discussion
A word of caution on abandoning undifferentiated names. When we were doing
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
-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
11:48 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Fwd: [RDA-L] Undifferentiated personal names: call for
community discussion
A word of caution on abandoning undifferentiated names. When we were doing the
regional IFLA meetings for the International Cataloguing Principles
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
@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Fwd: [RDA-L] Undifferentiated personal names: call for
community discussion
I am not a cataloger, but something that's always confused me:
Why do you need an 'authority record' at all for an 'undifferentiated name'?
What's the authority/authorization
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
Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Lasater, Mary Charles
[mary.c.lasa...@vanderbilt.edu]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 1:48 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Fwd: [RDA-L] Undifferentiated personal names: call
@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
Barbara Tillett wrote:
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 cataloging code
On 4/2/2012 2:23 PM, Jenifer K Marquardt wrote:
Jonathan,
Often there is good information concerning the person available on the item
cataloged such as affiliaton with a particular institution, other titles
published, or place of residence. While this information cannot be used to
establish
@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 1:40 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Fwd: [RDA-L] Undifferentiated personal names: call for
community discussion
I am not a cataloger, but something that's always confused me:
Why do you need
Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 1:31 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Fwd: [RDA-L] Undifferentiated personal names: call for
community discussion
On 4/2/2012 2:23 PM, Jenifer K Marquardt
John Myers' posts mocking up possible ways to display information to
disambiguate two identical names made me wonder if perhaps it would be
useful to add a new element to authority records to record relationship
designators from RDA Appendix I representing the roles of a person.
For example:
One issue that has not yet been brought up in this discussion has been the
recent revision approved by the JSC to change the way Field of Activity is
recorded, and to eliminate this element as a possible addition to
authorized access points, thus creating more possibilities of needing an
] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 3:22 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: [RDA-L] Undifferentiated personal names
John Myers' posts mocking up possible ways to display information to
disambiguate two identical names made me wonder if perhaps it would be useful
to add
, 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
Folks:
I'm really glad to see some movement and discussion on this issue. I've
been cranking for some time about how the changes in our environment really
allow us to consider better options on undifferentiated names. The source
of all the problems here is the dual use of name headings as both
Subject: [RDA-L] Undifferentiated personal names
John Myers' posts mocking up possible ways to display information to
disambiguate two identical names made me wonder if perhaps it would be useful
to add a new element to authority records to record relationship designators
from RDA Appendix I
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 16:37
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Undifferentiated personal names
Benjamin, I like this suggestion too, although I would make the $a a $i
in this case. But I also wonder about
Forwarded on behalf of the PCC Policy Committee. Please excuse duplication.
Please cc c...@loc.gov on all responses.
The discussion paper is available here:
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/FAQ_PCC%20Day%20One%20for%20RDA%20Authority%20Records.doc
Original Message
Subject:
25 matches
Mail list logo
