> -----Original Message-----
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
> Sent: November-04-13 12:45 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Qualifying access points
> 
> Richard Moore said:
> 
> >There are optional instructions in 11.13.1 subsections for making
> >additions in an authorized access point "if the addition assists in the
> >identification of the body" (e.g. 11.13.1.3), but these all apply to
> >unique names, and assume that a non-unique name will always be
> >qualified.
> 
> I think we make a mistake to base whether or not to qualify a heading on
> whether on not the qualifier is needed to make a heading unique.
> This practice ignores the possibility of future conflict, resulting in the 
> present
> confusing mix of one unqualified heading plus the same heading qualified.
> Both headings need qualification.  To avoid retrospective change, just qualify
> at the outset.
> 
> It would seem better to me to have the practice of always including dates for
> persons, and perhaps head office location for corporate bodies.  (In the type
> of material we catalogue we rarely have families, so I don't know what the
> best qualifier would be.)  Always qualifying would make for more consistent
> and less confusing forms of headings.
> 
> A heading which is unique in one file, may not be unique in another, and may
> not be unique in the future.
> 
> Consistency is needed for title entries as well.  I'm tired of trying to 
> explain
> why some video records have 130 "(Motion picture)"
> qualified entry, and some do not.  The qualified heading should be used
> always or never.  If never, other features of the record distinguish it, even
> with the loss of the GMD.
> 
> In relation of variant access points, the same qualifier should be applied as 
> in
> the established form.  Otherwise patrons might mistake the cross reference
> as pointing to the wrong heading.
> 
> Our practices should be based on what aids access, not 'how many angels can
> dance on the head of a pin' type analysis of the RDA text.
> 
> AACR2 in time caught up with many needs; I asume RDA will as well.  In the
> meantime, let's do what works best for our patrons.
> 


RDA already surpasses AACR2 in that differentiating data can be recorded in 
elements regardless of whether or not used in authorized access points.

I already make extensive use of that data in the new RDA-based MARC authority 
fields when checking authority records. RDA authority records are a delight to 
work with, even with the few odd updates to access points such as spelled out 
terms.

The ideal would be a Wikipedia-style disambiguation function, where alongside 
the preferred name would be data elements and select relationships to works 
pulled from the authority record as needed.

RDA supports that sensible and practical application of data, especially in a 
web interface. AACR2 does not, as AACR2 assumes a flat file catalog and 
relatively static record structure. To get AACR2 caught up in supporting more 
modern interfaces would mean circumventing its limitations. That would result 
in something like RDA no matter what.

Disagreeing with a few odd choices for controlled vocabulary terms in RDA is 
like missing the forest for the trees.


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Reply via email to