Over the summer, PoCo has been coming to grips with a number of the recommendations in the Non-MARC Authorities report. By now, you have seen my earlier message about Part 2. Earlier this summer, PCC set up a survey for you to respond to concerning the options presented in Part 1 for breaking up current undifferentiated name clusters. We received very few responses.
This has prompted me to approach this question in a different way. I'd like, for now, to separate the question of the breaking up of existing undifferentiated name clusters and the need for additional options for adding qualifier(s) to a name to make it unique going forward. Have any of you been forced to add to an undifferentiated name cluster lately (or create a new one)? All of the additional implementable options presented in the report had their drawbacks and the ideal could only be realized in the future. Perhaps it would be better, if there is no pressing need, to wait until the preferred option in the report becomes feasible (Use the unique LCCN identifier alone to differentiate the persons represented by authorities. 100 fields would no longer have to be unique, and the LC/NACO Heading Comparison rules would no longer be needed). Over the next few weeks, could anyone who has had to create or add to an undifferentiated name record lately send me an email. I'll be happy to compile the results. Your help would be much appreciated. Philip E. Schreur Chair, Program for Cooperative Cataloging Head, Metadata Department Stanford University 650-723-2454 650-725-1120 (fax)
