Our OPAC used to provide authority records and navigable see-also references,
but now doesn’t. Sometimes lack of understanding between creators and users of
the data on the one hand, and providers of the systems on the other, makes us
take a step backwards rather than forwards. This needs to
RDA doesn't require authorized access points. 9.1.2 says An authorized access
point is one of the techniques used to represent ... a person. 18.4.1 gives
two ways to record a relationship between a resource and a person (etc.)
associated with it: by using one of these techniques: a) identifier
I'd like to welcome back our colleagues at the Library of Congress.
Regards
Richard
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library
Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
Thank you, Richard. We are delighted to be back.
Bruce Chr. Johnson
The Library of Congress
Policy Standards Division
Washington, DC 20540-4263 USA
[cid:image001.png@01CECB12.26C41E80]
b...@loc.govmailto:b...@loc.gov
www.loc.govhttp://www.loc.gov/
202.707.1652 (voice)
202.707.6629 (fax)
From:
I second that! Hooray! Welcome back!
---
Lizzy Walker, MLS
Assistant Professor, Metadata and Digital Initiatives Librarian
http://works.bepress.com/lizzy_walker/
316-978-5138
Wichita State University Libraries
1845 Fairmount St.
Wichita, KS 67260-0068
From: Resource
That's a source of the misunderstanding right there. RDA doesn't talk about
bibliographic records or authority records, nor does it talk about MARC fields.
It doesn't use the term alternate access point, but it does use variant
access point (defined in the glossary as An alternative to the
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: October-17-13 12:36 AM
To: Brenndorfer, Thomas
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: Access points vs. cross references
Thomas posted:
Implementing these access points in a card catalog produces
Charles, Thomas and Richard,
This has been very helpful. Many thanks for your ideas!
In fact, I had been mainly thinking of authority data.
I find Richard's analysis quite convincing: If you *do* create an
access point, you include the title (apart from the exceptions
mentioned by Arthur).
Heidrun wrote:
up to now, there is no text string Wiesenmüller,
Heidrun, 1968- in the authority record for my own person. Instead, the
relevant fields look like this:
100 Wiesenmüller, Heidrun
548 1968 $4 datl
The code datl makes it clear that this is a year of birth (there are
other codes
Mary Mastraccio wrote:
I hope that rather than changing your practice, the Anglo-American practice
will change to your practice--as in having the dates in a separate field (046)
rather than using a subfield $d. It has been suggested that the 100$a does not
need to be unique because other
Working my way through the rules for nobility and royalty, there was one
more thing which bothered me.
For kings, etc., RDA 9.4.1.4.1 calls for recording the title and the
name of the state in a language preferred by the agency. This fits in
with the principle of using a well-established form
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 17.10.2013 15:50, schrieb Heidrun Wiesenmüller:
Charles, Thomas and Richard,
The connection between a title record and a person record is not created by
the
use of a text string (AAP). Instead, the records are directly linked by
recording
Mary Mastraccio wrote:
I hope that rather than changing your practice, the Anglo-American
practice will change to your practice--as in having the dates in a separate
field (046) rather than using a subfield $d. It has been suggested that the
100$a does not need to be unique because other
Kevin wrote:
It's when we're able to rely on identifiers that we can let go of the need for
unique access points.
Yes, and that needs to be the goal. Too often we limit designing for the future
because of current practices. My comment was in reference to the German library
needing to adopt
RDA doesn't use the term alternate access point. The example that is
being referred to here is in 6.27.4.1 where it is clearly labeled as a
variant access point, i.e. a cross-reference in an authority record:
Construct additional variant access points if considered important for
access.
Welcome back.
kathie
Kathleen Goldfarb
Technical Services Librarian
College of the Mainland
Texas City, TX 77539
409 933 8202
P Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email.
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
While I agree that the access point should not serve as a unique identifier for
systems, there is still the need for users to distinguish easily between
identically-named entities in an index.
So the discussion of what information should be included in an access point
still seems worthwhile
Mary Mastraccio wrote:
Kevin wrote:
It's when we're able to rely on identifiers that we can let go of the need
for unique access points.
Yes, and that needs to be the goal. Too often we limit designing for the
future because of current practices. My comment was in reference to the
Mac Elrod wrote:
Thomas posted:
Implementing these access points in a card catalog produces
Fast, Howard, 1914-2003. Sylvia
see
Cunningham, E.V., 1914-2003. Sylvia
In a card catalogue, Fast is a cross reference, not an alternate
access point.
Even better in a OPAC would be
Thomas said:
All cross-references are access points
That's a silly and confusing ambiguity, but unfortunately not the only
one in RDA. A cross reference leads one *to* an access point (or
entry as we have traditionally called it).
This understanding is just a carryforward from what was
The marvelous Mary said:
It has been suggested that the 100$a does not need to be unique
because other data/fields supply the disambiguation information.
IMNSHO that should even more be the case for 245, even with the loss
of the GMD. There is other disambiguation information.
__ __
Kevin said:
I agree about being sure we don't let current practices limit our design for the future.
But if data is going to be tagged as being RDA, then it needs to conform to RDA
'Äsguidelines--which means that if authorized access points are being used, they need to
be made unique.
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: October-17-13 2:55 PM
To: Brenndorfer, Thomas
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Access points vs. cross references
Thomas said:
All cross-references are access points
That's a silly and
In a world where we need to disambiguate text strings, uniqueness is a
valid strategy. In a world where a unique identifier represents a
non-unique string in data, uniqueness at the string level becomes
irrelevant. We are [still] in the first world, but I hope not forever.
Diane
On Thu, Oct
Kevin said:
The point that seems to be missed here is that Fast, Howard,
1914-2003 is not a variant access point for the entity identified as
Cunningham, E. V., 1914-2003. It is an authorized access point for
a different entity ... Both forms of name are valid authorized access
points; as such,
Benjamin said:
While I agree that the access point should not serve as a unique
identifier for systems, there is still the need for users to
?distinguish easily between identically-named entities in an index.
It seems to me Benjamin is *very* right about this. Too much of our
discussion ignores
Mac Elrod wrote:
The point that seems to be missed here is that Fast, Howard,
1914-2003 is not a variant access point for the entity identified as
Cunningham, E. V., 1914-2003. It is an authorized access point for
a different entity ... Both forms of name are valid authorized access
points;
Considering this authority record for the name-title SEE reference (based on
AACR2 22.2B3) ...
100 1# $a Cunningham, E. V., $d 1914-2003. $t Sylvia
400 1# $a Fast, Howard, $d 1914-2003. $t Sylvia
I wonder if catalogers are tempted to fix this in bibliographic records.
The 400
28 matches
Mail list logo
