I'm not going to involve myself in any politics, but I would like to say
how much I enjoyed the 300 field in question.
Regards
Richard
_
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library
I've caught up very late with this discussion, and share some of the
concerns. Rather than repeating what others have said I'd just like to
point out, in response to what Mike says below, that there could be
issues with creating a name heading in the form Terry (Dog) - unless we
are to regard being
Hal
>The initial work of correlating the data from the LC/NAF and the German
>authority files and the associated bibliographic records was so
effective
>that it revealed thousands of errors in the LC/NAF -- duplicates, false
>attributions, errors with undifferentiated name records.
I didn't
Hal
>Fuzzy logic may even do the job better than too-scarce skilled humans.
It can also throw up false equivalences of its own, and create compound
problems when datasets are matches against each other. You do have to
set the barrier for matching very high.
_
Richard Moor
Adam
We shared your concern at the possible effect of removing "Field of
Activity" as a potential qualifier, on our ability to avoid
undifferentiated records. We're putting forward a proposal to JSC, to
amend the RDA definition of "Profession or occupation" from "A
profession or occupation in whic
After considering the recent discussion on the PCC list of the
discussion paper "The Future of Undifferentiated Personal Name Authority
Records and Other Implications for PCC Authority Work", the BL has
decided not to create any further undifferentiated NARs for NACO, nor to
add any further identit
Will
Relationship designators currently authorised are in Appendices I, J and
K in the RDA Toolkit.
Regards
Richard
_
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library
Tel.: +44 (0)
Agreed, although the MARC relator terms supplement Appendix I only,
being designators that, in the terminology of RDA, specify a
"relationship between a resource and a person, family, or corporate body
associated with that resource".
Regards
Richard
_
Richard Moore
Author
Dear Diane
I would be interested in comparing notes with you on access points that
you come across, which can not be differentiated using RDA. While
remaining optimistic, we have certainly found cases within existing
undifferentiated records that will be problematic, and are considering
some targ
Adam
>Except that LCSH occupation/profession headings are in the plural,
while RDA terms would be in the singular. I'm not at >all sure that you
could singularize an LCSH heading and still code the subfield $2 of the
374 field for LCSH. What do >others think about this?
I think that if we are t
I think "CE" is more usually taken as "Common Era", rather than
"Christian Era". "Christian Era" would, I agree, defeat the object.
The Wikipedia article on the abbreviations has the following links to
published usage:
http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=BC,BCE&year_start=1800&year_e
nd=2
Yes, "fl." was allowed in AACR2. You'll find it in the examples in AACR2
22.17A, and in many headings across the LC/NAF.
Although the examples in RDA 9.19.1.5 spell it out as "Flourished", NACO
practice follows the LCPS for 9.19.1.1, and prefers "Active". I suppose
one can be active, without neces
rpor the rest of the
time?), whereas flourished has more of a meaning of initialising.
Activated? I suppose at least 'active' is a relatively short,
uncluttering word!
Martin
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mail
things are yet to be deterimined
Cheers!
Martin
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: 23 July 2012 13:42
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L]
Martin
The BL has used LC/NAF in current cataloguing for a number of years, but
we have large numbers of legacy bibliographic records containing
headings from our own former national authority file, and others created
to standards that preceded that (for example, successive iterations of
Panizzi's
Thanks Bob for answering this while the UK slept!
The considerations in choosing between an acronymic and a formally
spelled-out form of conference (or other corporate name) are broadly
similar in RDA as in AACR2. RDA 11.2.2.5 says:
"If variant forms of the name are found in resources associated
Gene
Yes, freed from the LCRIs we have created a glorious proliferation of
variant access points.
Regards
Richard
_
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library
Tel.: +44 (0)19
For *authority* records, LC are accepting any order for the moment.
We've been putting $e at the end, but any $d after that. There seems to
be a school of thought that $d should precede $c.
_
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library
I'm sorry, typo there - there is a school of thought that *$e* should
precede $c.
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: 02 August 2012 07:53
To: RDA-L@LISTSER
Mac
The only one of these I can attempt to answer concerns fictitious
persons and places. As I understand it, fictitious persons will only be
established in the LC/NAF, coded 100, when considered creators or
contributors. LCSH coded 150 will still be applicable for subject use.
So in most cases yo
Adam
We would put the specific location of the conference in $e, and the
broader places (Ariz. And Fla.)in your examples in $f, as other
associated places.
The mapping in the Toolkit of 11.3.2 to 370 subfield $f is wrong. I
think a lot of these mappings were devised before anyone had a chance to
RDA and MARC always seem to be slightly out of step with each other, I
think this is part of the issue.
MARC is ambiguous in that it has a specific subfield for related
countries ($c), but the definition of $f allows associated places at any
level. $f purports to be for "Other or additional" place
) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Moore, Richard wrote:
> RDA and MARC always seem to be slightly out of step with each other, I
> think this is part of the issue.
>
> MARC is ambi
I'm interested in the opinions of other people who are creating NACO
authority records in RDA, on the use of the 046 field in personal NARs.
We always record known dates of birth and death in 046, as specifically
as they are known. We've also taken the view that, if dates of birth and
death are n
ect sense to me, and you are correct in
saying that recording optional useful information is a separate issue
from creating access points.
Regards,
Peter
Van: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
Access [RDA-L@
John
Thanks for this. In RDA a period of activity can also be a single date; we've
tended to use, for example 046 $s 18 for someone known to have become active in
the 19th century, but have not closed this with $t 18 unless certain that the
person also ceased to be active in the 19th century.
Daniel
I think you're right. But I'm not hugely confident that this is anything other
than an omission, that could perhaps be rectified by a fast-track proposal to
change RDA.
Concerning "$2 naf", DCM:Z1 says in the notes on 370: "Use the established form
of the geographic place name as found
John
I agree, it is strange. The only hearsay explanation I have received, is
that JSC thought at one point that if place names were recorded in 370
in "qualifier" form, then a clever system might be able to flip them
into a corporate access point if the need arose for disambiguation. I'm
not conv
John
I was just reading up this thread and waiting for someone to point that
out. "Russia (Federation)" and "Russia, Federation" are both wrong, in
authority 370 in LC/NAF.
This follows the LCPS for 11.3.1 ("Do not include the type of
jurisdiction"), which can also be applied to 9.8.1.3, 9.9.1.3
John
I was just reading up this thread and waiting for someone to point that
out. "Russia (Federation)" and "Russia, Federation" are both wrong, in
authority 370 in LC/NAF.
This follows the LCPS for 11.3.1 ("Do not include the type of
jurisdiction"), which can also be applied to 9.8.1.3, 9.9.1.3
Martin
There is a revision process for RDA:
http://www.rda-jsc.org/revision.html
If you wanted to submit a proposal yourself, you would need to discuss
doing it through CILIP, as the relevant member body of JSC.
That's the way RDA gets revised.
Regards
Richard
-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: 24 October 2012 10:18
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
Martin
There is a revision process for RDA:
http://www.rda-jsc.org/revision.html
If you wanted to submit a proposa
n
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: 24 October 2012 11:35
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
I don't think AACR2 used to be
With apologies for cross-posting.
In the hope that it might be helpful, we have shared our British Library
Guide to RDA Name Authority Records as a global workflow in the RDA
Toolkit.
This guide describes British Library best practice for the creation of
RDA name authority records. It results b
And one typo, as is my wont - for LC-PSS-PS please read LC-PCC-PS.
Regards
Richard
From: Moore, Richard
Sent: 27 November 2012 09:06
To: 'pccl...@listserv.loc.gov'; 'RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA';
'auto...@listserv.syr.edu&#x
Salman
Here are some answers, as I understand it.
The only qualifiers than can be used are those than correspond to
elements in RDA Chapter 9.
>can we use qualifier in subfield $c which is defined as:
>$c - Titles and other words associated with a name
>Includes qualifying information such
Martin
The BL adopted RDA for authority records last year, and is currently
training its cataloguers in RDA for full implementation in March this
year. Personally I'd go for training in RDA now rather than AACR2, if
you can.
Cheers
Richard
_
Richard Moore
Authority Contr
I'm glad we cleared that up ;-)
Cheers
Richard
_
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library
Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk
In the chapters that have been "reworded", the syntax only has changed,
with the aim of making the reading level easier. This was a result of
the US test. No instructions, or instruction numbers, have changed as a
result of the re-wording.
That's separate from revision of the standard itself, whic
Carole
I recognise your characterisation of cataloguers. For years our struggle, if
you can call it that, has been to persuade cataloguers to do only what is
required, in order to get the throughput, while they have persistently done
more - whether providing extra access points, or re-measurin
With apologies for cross-posting, I'd like to thank Judy for her email below,
and draw colleagues attention to two of the BL's proposals (BL/3 and BL/4),
that are included in this update, and will appear shortly in the RDA text. They
will greatly increase the range of qualifiers available to cre
Miranda
Please see here in the MARC 21 Format for Authority Data:
http://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/adtracing.html
Regards
Richard
_
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library
Two points of interest:
The new field 386 is not specified for personal NARs, only for titles
and name-titles. This is mainly because it conveys information already
conveyed by controlled vocabulary in 374. And soon in 368:
When the changes to RDA that JSC agreed in November 2012 appear in RDA
My understanding too.
When time permits, it would be useful if LCSH authorities for fictitious
characters could be cancelled, and re-established as RDA authorities in
the name authority file. This would avoid having two separate authority
records for the same entity, each using a different form as
Greta
Wouldn't a relationship designator in an X11 field go in $j? X11 $e is
for subordinate unit.
Regards
Richard
_
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library
Tel.: +44 (0)1
Cross-posting to PCC and RDA_L lists, sorry.
Following the recent discussion on this on the PCC List, I wanted to ask
for clarity on a couple of points, before contemplating training our
cataloguers to begin using these designators.
Assuming for the moment the current list of designators i
Sorry, my third example should read:
3. Body A splits to form Body B and Body C
110 Body A
510 product of a split: Body B
510 product of a split: Body C
110 Body B
510 predecessor: Body A
110 Body C
510 predecessor: Body A
From: Moore, Richard
Sent: 11 June 2013 14
Is anyone in a position to know what has happened to the Local and
Global Workflows in the RDA Toolkit, following the July 2013 update? The
links under "Workflows" have disappeared, leaving just "Create
Workflow", "Shared Workflows" and "My Workflows". When clicked, "Shared
Workflows" says "Feature
This seems to be global. We've alerted the publishers.
Regards
Richard
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: 10 July 2013 07:28
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [
This has now been fixed.
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: 10 July 2013 09:48
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Workflows in RDA Toolkit
This seems to be global
Dear colleagues
Changes to RDA were published this week, to implement the decisions of
JSC last November. The BL Guide to RDA Name Authority Records has been
updated to reflect these changes. It can be found here:
RDA Toolkit
-Tools
--Workflows
---Global workflows
BL Guide to RD
Adam
To be fair, this is the British/Canadian/Australian/New Zealand/ South
African/Indian/Rest of the World spelling ;-) RDA had to choose one
spelling or the other, and having made its choice, there would be no
particular reason to change it.
LC use "color" in their descriptions (e.g. LC-PCC-PS
Mac, you said
>I don't agree with LC that it is OK to have one unqualified form of a
name
>(other than undifferentiated ones) if all other forms of that name are
qualified
I agree that it's really not useful to leave one name unqualified, when
that preferred name has been used more than
Adam
I agree with you that "Fictitious character from Card" isn't an
appropriate qualifier. 9.19.1.2 instructs to add the term "Fictitious
character" to names for fictitious characters. There is no instruction
to modify this qualifier into a phrase. I don't think "Fictitious
character from Card"
Adam
I agree with you that "Fictitious character from Card" isn't an
appropriate qualifier. 9.19.1.2 instructs to add the term "Fictitious
character" to names for fictitious characters. There is no instruction
to modify this qualifier into a phrase. I don't think "Fictitious
character from Car
We have an author whose birth date is known to be between 1310 and 1319.
We can record it in the 046 following edtf, but how would people deal
with it in an RDA authorized access point? RDA 9.3.1.3 doesn't have an
example of "between 1310 and 1319", but should this mean we can't do it?
It's as comp
Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 7:57 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] A date between 1310 and 1319
We have an author whose birth date is known to be between 1310 and 1319. We can
record it in the 046 following edtf, but how would people deal with it in
From: Moore, Richard <mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 5:56 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] A date between 1310 and 1319
We have an author whose birth date is known to be between 1310 and 1319. We can
record it in the 046 followin
Kevin
App. E would suggest “Beedle|c(Bard) (Fictitious Character)”, as we don’t
currently have colons available, in RDA syntax, to separate qualifiers in
access points for personal names.
Regards
Richard
_
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The Bri
Pat
I agree, we don't want them to look like real people, which is why we proposed
the addition of "Fictitious character" as a core element last year. The same
applies to access points for real non-human entities. This is why 9.19.1.2 is
how it is. It's important to the functional objective "Id
Pat
I agree, we don't want them to look like real people, which is why we proposed
the addition of "Fictitious character" as a core element last year. The same
applies to access points for real non-human entities. This is why 9.19.1.2 is
how it is. It's important to the functional objective "Id
Sevim
There are examples in the "BL Guide to RDA Name Authority Records", in
the RDA Toolkit:
Tools -> Workflows -> Global Workflows
Go to "Contents" in this Guide, and click on "Examples of RDA Name
Authority Records".
All are real NARs, present in LC/NAF. As they are examples, the
Martin
You could argue the same where pseudonyms are concerned. In fact this is
a bit like a pseudonym, and the relationship ought to be brought out in
the authority file, by means of a 500 reference using a relationship
designator like "Character created by", which doesn't exist yet in RDA.
Adam
They should, and we ought to have relationship designators “Character created
by” and “Creator of character” to express the relationship. And then persuade
system designers to ensure that they make authorities available to the user,
properly linked, so that these relationships can be na
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 cha
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) identifie
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
E-ma
Tim
We discussed recently on the PCC list whether such terms could be
considered "Other designations" under 9.19.1.7, and came to no firm
conclusion. I agree with you that Profession or Occupation is more
useful.
Regards
Richard
_
Richard Moore
Authority Control
Adam
Although you can't do this:
>110 2_ $a Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
>386$a Nobel Prize winners $2 lcsh
>100 1_ $a Aspect, Alain
>386$a Balzan Prize winners $2 lcsh
You can put these terms in 368:
110 2_ $a Organisation for the Prohibition o
Heidrun
I agree.
There's an inconsistency (inherited from FRAD) in the way places are defined as
attributes in Chapter 9, and in Chapter 11. For persons, they are enumerated as
separate elements for Place of Birth, Place of Death, Country Associated with
the Person, and Place of Residence, Etc
Heidrun
I agree.
There's an inconsistency (inherited from FRAD) in the way places are defined as
attributes in Chapter 9, and in Chapter 11. For persons, they are enumerated as
separate elements for Place of Birth, Place of Death, Country Associated with
the Person, and Place of Residenc
qualifier in an access point to break a conflict. I think I’ve come around
(didn’t take long!) but I think we should rename 368 $c “Other attribute” or
“Other attribute or designation”.
Adam
From: Moore, Richard <mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 12:52
Heidrun
The same distinction is in Chapter 8, applicable to authorized and variant
access points in general.
8.6 Authorized Access Points Representing Persons, Families and Corporate Bodies
"If two or more persons, families, or corporate bodies have the same or similar
names, include one or mo
Heidrun
I wouldn't assume that the title of a conference's proceedings was the name of
the conference itself, without an explicit statement to that effect. It does
have us scratching our heads occasionally - it's a new issue to deal with, now
that LCRI 21.1.B1 has bitten the dust.
We were very
Ricardo
All you are doing with "372 Punk rock music", is expressing that the person has
that field of activity. It's the 374 that tells you their occupation, in
relation to that field:
372 $a Punk rock $2 lcsh
372 $a Punk rock musicians $2 lcsh
or
372 $a Punk rock $2 lcsh
372 $
mily violence" in the Field of activity data element I often
> pause and think, "Wait, am I making it sound like this person is a
> perpetrator of these things?"
> Thus:
> 372 $a War crimes $a Genocide $2 lcsh
> 374 $a Law teachers $a College teachers $a Authors $2
Robert
I once asked a colleague at LC, what they thought about a person's name being
recorded as the field of activity for a conference about the person; the reply
was "Like you, I think it looks a little odd and probably is best handled by
subject headings, but I don't see anything that wou
--20th century $2 lcsh
Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Wednesday
Richard and Charles
You could have "Goretti, Maria, $c Siostra" as an authorised access
point (and therefore also as a variant access point, as here), following
the optional addition of an "Other term of rank, honour or office", at
9.19.1.6.
Regards
Richard
_
Ric
Is it possible that she might be Siostra Maria Goretti Nowak?
http://gazetacz.com.pl/artykul.php?idm=432&id=9957
It's hard to be certain, but this might be the same person as in this
picture:
http://martel-ksiazki.pl/image/cache/Ciasta_i_ciasteczka-500x500.jpg
Regards
Richard
_
80 matches
Mail list logo
