First, let me thank the PCC membership for their thoughtful input on the
undifferentiated personal names discussion. The open forum held at the
ALA Anaheim meeting was fruitful and interesting, and the Policy
Committee was impressed with the breadth and detail of the feedback.
The Policy Committee met by phone call and set the following direction:
·PCC does not want to proliferate undifferentiated personal name records
in the LC-PCC Name Authority File going forward;
·There is no urgency to split apart undifferentiated records that
already exist, but we do need to define new practices to achieve
differentiation and implement them (PoCo will begin work soon on
guidelines);
·A project to split apart undifferentiated records in the retrospective
file would best be accomplished after we have experience with those new
practices;
·We need to change our paradigm from name headings/records defined by
unique text strings to unique identities, and to define a path from one
to the other; and
·We will form a Task Group to define that path, to identify the issues
and barriers to achieving it, and make recommendations for next steps to
move us toward this new paradigm.
A draft charge for that Task Group follows below. PoCo is asking for
expressions of interest in serving on this Task Group, noting the
particular stakeholders (at the bottom of the charge) that require
representation. If you are interested In participating in the work of
this Task Group, please send an email message to the PCC Chair at the
address below specifically addressing the role, skills, and/or expertise
that you would bring to this group. PoCo will begin the appointment
process on September 4, 2012. Comments on the charge are also welcome.
The PCC *Task Group on the Creation and Function of Name Authorities in
a Non-MARC Environment* is charged to:
1.Think broadly and practically about identities (personal, corporate
and family) in both an RDA and a linked data environment and how they
function within it. What will that environment look like? What are the
key conceptual differences from the current authority record environment?
2.Identify the key changes that are needed to current authority record
systems, structures, and guidelines to support the new environment,
including the impact on OCLC/NACO normalization rules.
3.Prepare a report to describe (as specifically as possible) those key
changes, problem areas and proposed solutions. What are the barriers to
moving forward, and what can PCC do to eliminate them? What can NACO
catalogers do now to move in this direction?
If the group has any questions about scope, process, or any other
issues, please address them to the PCC Chair, who will consult PoCo as
needed.
The primary goal of this Task Group is to provide guidance to the PCC
Policy Committee to make the best decisions for changing current
authority record practices.
*Time Frame: *
·Appointment of group: September 2012
·Deadline for report to be submitted to PCC Policy Committee: March 15,
2013
·PCC Policy Committee will review by April 5, 2013 and post for OpCo review
·OpCo will discuss at meetings May 2-3, 2013
·PCC Steering Committee will discuss OpCo outcomes and prepare an
announcement for distribution on PCCLIST and posting on PCC web site,
requesting public comments by ALA Chicago, June 2013
·Implementation date: The TG will recommend an implementation strategy
and timetable
**
*Chain of Reporting: *PCC Policy Committee
**
*Task Group Members: *Will include members from the following
communities: PoCo liaison, Standing Committee on Automation liaison,
OCLC/VIAF, Authorities vendor, ILS vendor, NACO, CJK NACO/CEAL, the
Bibliographic Framework initiative, and ISNI.
**
Linda Barnhart
Head, Metadata Services Department
UC San Diego Libraries and
Chair, Program for Cooperative Cataloging, 2011-12
858-534-6759
[email protected]
**
