Re: [RDA-L] Fwd: [RDA-L] Undifferentiated personal names: call for community discussion
John Myers' suggestion was my first thought as well. We need to think about human differentiation in search results, as well as machine differentiation. In a context where multiple results appear associated with multiple people who happen to have the same name, giving users more clues could be vitally helpful (especially in a sorted list). I accept that differentiation of the name string is needed by systems now (though it might not be needed in future). It could be possible to include the ID in a 1xx subfield and hopefully, to suppress that subfield from display and substitute concatenation with (a 670 $a containing brackets? or will there be a different field for [Author of...] designators?). Users will not find it useful to see those identifiers. Author of Xyz as context, even if it appears in a results list display for title Xyz, would be better than nothing. My concern is that some ILS systems, or other search or display contexts, may not be so sophisticated in suppressing or concatentating fields. Could the alternative of choosing an Author of Xyz statement, and including it in an 1xx subfield to provide a unique string if no other qualifier is available, be considered? However this point is resolved, I think it's great that this question is being raised (finally!). Looking ahead to linked data, it makes no sense to have a conglomerate graph for several entities that happen to have the same name string. If it's a separate entity, it needs its own URI... Merging what seemed like separate identities that later turn out to be the same, might turn out to be somewhat easier with linked data than it is now with MARC authority records, but it can be done. I think the traffic would end up being a lot less just to set up separate records, than we have now, with entities hopping on and off of undifferentiated records all the time and and the poor catalogers needing to look at what they've got and figure out if their bib headings need to hop over to link to a new authority record or not, whenever that happens. Laura Laura Akerman Technology and Metadata Librarian Room 128, Robert W. Woodruff Library Emory University, Atlanta, Ga. 30322 (404) 727-6888 lib...@emory.edu 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.edumailto:mye...@union.edu Forwarded on behalf of the PCC Policy Committee. Please excuse duplication. Please cc c...@loc.govmailto: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
Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
I'm posting this to the BIBFRAME list as well since it seemed relevant...
To me, the original main entry concept could more usefully be thought about
in a larger context of for any field that is repeatable in a set of
bibliographic description fields, is it useful to be able to designate one such
fields as primary for purposes of selection for display, categorization
(where a particular application requires one to select one box to
characterize a resource) or other functionalities? If so, should the
designation be stored with the field, or separately from it?
Other MARC approaches that serve that function include choice of format
(which one goes in Leader byte 6, which one gets reflected in an 006, when a
resource has characteristics of two formats?).
For fields like subject, I believe there was a convention that the most
important subject (the one upon which the primary classification number was
based) had the first position in the record. Since many modern systems permit
or even force re-ordering tags in numerical order, that positional value can
and often is easily lost. Many of us stopped lamenting this a long time ago,
but was it valuable?
What I don't think is valuable, is having to pick one author of a work with
multiple authors and designate that person as the main one, based on the
almost arbitrary factor of position of the name on the title page, (which is
often alphabetical), and ending up deeming this person Creator and relegating
the other author(s) to Contributor status. (Nor do I think that dichotomy is
particularly useful.)
Laura
Laura Akerman
Technology and Metadata Librarian
Room 128, Robert W. Woodruff Library
Emory University, Atlanta, Ga. 30322
(404) 727-6888
lib...@emory.edu
-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: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 11:24 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework
statement
Jim said:
Getting rid of a *single* main entry would be the equivalent of DC's
creator and contributor where creator is repeatable, thereby
creating multiple main entries.
How would you produce single entry bibliographies? How would scholars cite in
footnotes? How would cataloguers construct subject and added entries for works?
Libraries are part of a larger bibliographic universe, and should adhere to its
standards and practices, which would include returning to compiler main entry.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please contact
the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
original message (including attachments).
Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
Someone pointed out to me that I should clarify my last remark, talking about
the separating of people into Creator and Contributor I was thinking about
what happens when mapping MARC to the Dublin Core Creator or Contributor
elements, which are loosely defined - not to the RDA concepts which have a
different and more distinct definition:
Creator - A person, family, or corporate body responsible for the creation of a
work.
Contributor - A person, family or corporate body contributing to the
realization of a work through an expression. Contributors include editors,
translators, arrangers of music, performers, etc.
Is there any way to determine the RDA distinctions within the current MARC21?
Without the use of relators, I can't see how...
Laura
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Akerman, Laura
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 2:00 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework
statement
I'm posting this to the BIBFRAME list as well since it seemed relevant...
To me, the original main entry concept could more usefully be thought about
in a larger context of for any field that is repeatable in a set of
bibliographic description fields, is it useful to be able to designate one such
fields as primary for purposes of selection for display, categorization
(where a particular application requires one to select one box to
characterize a resource) or other functionalities? If so, should the
designation be stored with the field, or separately from it?
Other MARC approaches that serve that function include choice of format
(which one goes in Leader byte 6, which one gets reflected in an 006, when a
resource has characteristics of two formats?).
For fields like subject, I believe there was a convention that the most
important subject (the one upon which the primary classification number was
based) had the first position in the record. Since many modern systems permit
or even force re-ordering tags in numerical order, that positional value can
and often is easily lost. Many of us stopped lamenting this a long time ago,
but was it valuable?
What I don't think is valuable, is having to pick one author of a work with
multiple authors and designate that person as the main one, based on the
almost arbitrary factor of position of the name on the title page, (which is
often alphabetical), and ending up deeming this person Creator and relegating
the other author(s) to Contributor status. (Nor do I think that dichotomy is
particularly useful.)
Laura
Laura Akerman
Technology and Metadata Librarian
Room 128, Robert W. Woodruff Library
Emory University, Atlanta, Ga. 30322
(404) 727-6888
lib...@emory.edumailto:lib...@emory.edu
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA]mailto:[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA]
On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 11:24 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework
statement
Jim said:
Getting rid of a *single* main entry would be the equivalent of DC's
creator and contributor where creator is repeatable, thereby
creating multiple main entries.
How would you produce single entry bibliographies? How would scholars cite in
footnotes? How would cataloguers construct subject and added entries for works?
Libraries are part of a larger bibliographic universe, and should adhere to its
standards and practices, which would include returning to compiler main entry.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.camailto:m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message
(including any attachments) is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply
e-mail message and destroy all copies of the original message (including
attachments).
Re: [RDA-L] [ACAT] Upper case in records
Misha, I assume you've examined the Options in Word and un-checked anything that says replace as you type... ? It's in different places depending on what version, but I found it by opening Spelling and Grammar and clicking Options... Laura From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Schutt, Misha Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 12:54 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] [ACAT] Upper case in records Adger Williams cautions: Just a small caveat to Misha's plan for those who haven't tried it yet. Many (all?) diacritical marks will come out reassigned to non-ALA characters if you copy and paste into Word. (or at least this was true at some point. Perhaps not true now?) I have indeed seen Word do this with documents containing Unicode diacritics, but not consistently and certainly not if you don’t save the document. Word can accept and display pasted Unicode characters and diacritics, and they will remain intact while copying and pasting between Word and OCLC Connexion Client. Unfortunately, the same is not true for diacritics typed within Word--they must be fixed manually once back in Connexion, or adjusted using Joel Hahn’s excellent conversion macro, available here as CvtDiacritics: http://www.hahnlibrary.net/libraries/oml/connex.html Misha Schutt Catalog Librarian Burbank (Calif.) Public Library (818) 238 5570 msch...@ci.burbank.ca.us www.burbanklibrary.comhttp://www.burbanklibrary.com This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the original message (including attachments).
Re: [RDA-L] Web catalog
I've been uploading some test records and it got me thinking about catalog displays. ILS OPACs usually displays catalog data in at least 2 different ways: in a results list (either one field in a browse list, or often a few chosen bits in a brief display), and in a record display, which may be broken into tabs with bibliographic information in one place and item information elsewhere. Institutions can choose to display all fields, suppress some, or change the order of display from tag number order to something else. That above the fold screen real estate is precious; what's most important to put up top? Should a long, scroll through page be replaced with mouse-over or other expansions? Should we sort the most important fields to the top, and let users scroll down for more? Cases that got me thinking - if the 245 title proper field with a parallel title in different languages doesn't begin with the title in our users' most likely preferred language (say, English), will users not click on the hit list item because they don't recognize it's what they searched for? If that turns out to be what happens, what can the cataloger do about this? With MARC and current system, not much! With the end of the rule of 3, bibliographic records could get longer - many more name entries - and this may push some OPAC displays out of shape. Do we leave out the access points because they don't fit the little box allocated for them? What do we need to enable us to give the users more findability and information, without giving them too much on one screen? If we could add an attribute that would allow us to specify which title is preferred when only one displays, that could be utilized to select one of the alternate titles to display in hit lists, but still retain the title proper for the full bibliographic display. If we could rank names, subjects, etc. by importance, knowing that our most important display is set up to show the top 5 and let the user expand to see the rest, would that be useful? But then I'm thinking further, that the right way to go about it is to abstract these kind of choices to a separate file. To do that, though, we would need a way to reference every field; guess that means identifiers for each instance of a tag or element, doesn't it? Laura Laura Akerman Technology and Metadata Librarian Room 128, Robert W. Woodruff Library Emory University, Atlanta, Ga. 30322 (404) 727-6888 lib...@emory.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 5:55 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Web catalog Quoting Weinheimer Jim j.weinhei...@aur.edu: Additionally, we look at the author page for Peter Temple and see the arrangement: http://www.austlit.edu.au/run?ex=ShowAgentagentId=Aja where we see the totality of his works. Again, the cataloger should try to imagine the underlying information and structure to create such a page. Actually, I don't think that the cataloger has to think about the resulting page, especially because the resulting page could differ greatly using the same catalog data. That's the big change that I see: that the catalog record is no longer the display form of the data, but is the underlying data that could result in any number of different displays. I think the cataloger needs to understand what data is needed/desired to describe and identify the thing being cataloged. I don't think this is terribly different from your intended meaning, Jim, but I did want to remove the page structure from the discussion. kc -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the original message (including attachments).
