Date:
Fri, 1 Jul 2005 09:15:03 -0400
Reply-To:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
Sherman Clarke <sherman.clarke@NYU.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established
personal name headings
The universe of shared cataloging and shared authority work is built on
the assumption that headings will be as stable as possible. The
longstanding policies to continue to use headings that are accurate but
incomplete are built on this assumption. Bibliographic and authority
records have long legs as they are used by libraries around the world,
at different times. Thus, we have open headings for people who are
famously dead, and we have headings without dates. I think this
conservatism in headings is generally reasonable. Unfortunately, the
users probably suffer more than catalogers do; reference librarians
have to try to justify the open date for Warhol or Lady Di, end users
don't get the date context when no dates are included in the heading.
Maintenance of records may be easier now than it was in the past but
even with automated assistance and global change, it is effort that
could be spent in cataloging new items. If we are going to have more
dynamic headings, perhaps we should think about adding more 400s with
$w for earlier forms of the heading; this could expedite vendor
authority processing. Of course, depending on the system, it would
result in unhelpful references, unless we could teach our systems to
interfile open date 1928- with date range 1928-1987.
MARC encodes our headings which are based in AACR. The new cataloging
rules are moving toward being element-based. When you think of a name
as an element, the life dates become an attribute of the name. Encoding
schemes other MARC have other ways of dealing with dates than building
them in headings. This is probably not relevant in our catalogs now but
has an effect on how LC/NAF headings are used in other systems.
I'd advocate continuing the current policy of keeping headings as they
are (with open dates or without dates at all) in most cases. I imagine
most of the irate customers and pacification efforts are done for
famous cases. Adding death dates to the Andy Warhols, Lady Dis, and
Pope John Pauls would be a reasonable cost for easing the ire and
frustration, but I continue to think that the shared cataloging
universe is better served by a general conservatism about changing
existing headings.
Sherman Clarke, NYU Libraries and Art NACO
sherman.clarke@nyu.edu
=========================================================================
Date:
Fri, 1 Jul 2005 14:51:05 +0100
Reply-To:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
"Moore, Richard" <Richard.Moore@BL.UK>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established
personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>,
PCCLIST@sun8.loc.gov
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I agree with Sherman Clarke's remarks.
The British Library is currently applying resources to extending
authority control across our integrated catalogue. Our system does not
automatically propagate changes to authorised headings to our
bibliographic database, and we don't have the resources to intercept
very many of them manually. The suggestion to allow unnecessary changes
to dates would result in much greater numbers of headings being changed.
It would have a negative impact on the consistency of records we derived
from external sources, with the records already on our catalogue. This
would run counter to the improvements were are striving to make, for
users of our OPAC.
I think the proposal is an excellent idea in principle, in terms of the
information contained in headings, but I suspect that it would damage
the authority control of the catalogues of NACO participants, and users
of bibliographic and authority records. In making some headings look
"tidier", it would damage the accuracy of retrieval. =20
We have used 670 notes to record extra information, when it has become
available. =20
Regards
Richard
_________________________
Richard Moore=20
Authority Control Team Manager=20
The British Library
=20
Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
=20
E-mail: richard.moore@bl.uk
=========================================================================
Date:
Fri, 1 Jul 2005 09:08:12 -0500
Reply-To:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
Richard Amelung <amelunrc@SLU.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established
personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
Friends-I can say little more than to thoroughly second Mr. Clarke's
observations. I might also add that I completely pay homage to the
library user who will take the time to point out to me the apparent
oddity of an author whose heading shows an open birthdate of 1825- .
First, I really don't have true users (as opposed to other library
staff with too much time on their hands) calling me on the phone to
discuss such issues every other day. It does occur. In our shared
environment, such things need to be explained in the context of
thousands of libraries and millions of records, as Mr. Clarke so aptly
points out.
Second, and I hope that this isn't too obvious, but if someone says,
"Hey, Mr. Fields must be dead by now!" .... well, yes, so why do we
need to add a date to a heading where it's just obvious to all that the
fellow is in fact dead?
Please, I don't know about those requesting such a change, but I
don't have the time to be honing these records to the ultimate
perfection that someone out there might wish to see. We already close
dates for people in the "corporateness" (e.g., presidents, governors,
etc.) after their term in office is complete. Unless we're considering
a change to a "make work" society, I would prefer to leave things as
they are.
RCA
=========================================================================
Date:
Fri, 1 Jul 2005 12:00:35 -0400
Reply-To:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
Sue <swartzok@FIU.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established
personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
In-Reply-To: <37b38e437b7cf7.37b7cf737b38e4@nyu.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
I think library management systems are not yet capable of handling date
changes easily enough for this proposal to be feasible right now. For
example, the system we are migrating to (ExLibris Aleph) has totally
inadequate authority control capabilities and will not improve them until
release 17. Perhaps we should have this discussion again a few years from
now--providing of course that LMSs follow OCLC's lead and inaugurate a
linked authorities capability.
Meanwhile, perhaps the national libraries would take it upon themselves to
close the dates of a very very few of their own prominent citizens--Ronald
Reagan or Lady Di, for example--and even fewer prominent international
persons, such as the Pope. Perhaps PCC members could suggest names via
this list and then leave it up to the national library to act on the
suggestions or not. Knowing how much time my staff spends on database
maintenance, I'm not sure I like this idea myself. But I do know that
public services staff would like to see the deaths of prominent people
recorded in our headings.
Another crazy idea occurs to me: perhaps we should enter dates in a uniform
manner no matter whether a person was born more than 100 years ago or
not--that is, enter birth dates in the form of "b. 1968". Such a form does
not look as incomplete as "1968- ".
Sue
Sue Wartzok
Head, Cataloging Department
Green Library
University Park Campus
Florida International University
Miami, Florida 33199
Phone: (305) 348-6269
Fax: (305) 348-1798
=========================================================================
Date:
Fri, 1 Jul 2005 10:32:20 -0600
Reply-To:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
John Wright <John_Wright@BYU.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established
personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Perhaps another thing to think about would be to rethink the LCRI
encouraging us to ALWAYS add a date if it is known when we are
establishing a new heading Some of the problems arise because we add
birthdates to name headings when birthdates are not needed to make the
headings unique.
If birthdates are not needed to distinguish a heading and are not added
to an established heading, death dates or closing dates would not be
needed either.
John B. Wright
=========================================================================
Date:
Fri, 1 Jul 2005 09:37:25 -0700
Reply-To:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
"D. Brooking" <dbrookin@U.WASHINGTON.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established
personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
Comments: cc: PCCLIST@sun8.loc.gov
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050701111929.04eef770@mailhost.fiu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Sue:
I proposed to the Autocat list some years ago the idea of using "b. 1905"
instead of "1905- ". This was partially because open dates are confusing
to users (both patrons and reference librarians) and also because with the
advent of the 21st century it seemed at least that we should change the
parameters on when to leave dates open (as persons born in 1900 were
perhaps not quite so likely to be still alive as they were when LCRI
22.17 was first devised).
But the idea proved very unpopular at the time. I don't remember quite
why, except for the one concrete problem of filing in library opacs (the
"b." and the "d." used with dates get filed as letters, so the dates don't
get filed properly in chronological order with other dates). People at the
time, in fact, were proposing to close out people with death dates,
claiming that the database maintenance would not be that bad, even
envisioning monitoring obituaries, etc. Which I think just sounds like
*way* too much work (and it would be too difficult to justify the
time-consuming effort).
************
Diana Brooking
(206) 543-8405
Cataloging Librarian
Suzzallo Library
(206) 685-8782 fax
dbrookin@u.washington.edu
University of Washington
Box 352900
Seattle WA 98195-2900
=========================================================================
Date:
Fri, 1 Jul 2005 10:11:11 -0700
Reply-To:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
Daniel CannCasciato <Daniel.CannCasciato@CWU.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow addition of dates to personal name headings
Comments: To: AUTOCAT@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU
Comments: cc: cpso@loc.gov, sherman.clarke@nyu.edu, PCCLIST@sun8.loc.gov
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-disposition: inline
Hi All,
I've enjoyed the discussion and was almost convinced against the
proposed policy, contrary to my longstanding desire for it. Sherman
Clarke, from Art NACO almost got me completely moved with his posting on
the PCC list.
However, I'm holding on to my support for the proposed change. I
think, however, we could word it somewhat differently, to help
catalogers make judgments that are in line with the shared environment
in which we work. Perhaps something like:
Allow the optional addition of dates (birth, death or both) to
existing
personal name headings at will. (LCRI 22.17 that requires all new
headings
to have dates added when these are readily available). Catalogers
are urged
to keep in mind the requisite maintenance imposed upon (potentially)
thousands of
libraries when such changes are made. Please keep this workload
factor in mind
when considering the benefit of adding dates to existing headings.
Somewhat loosey-goosey, but a lot of good faith cooperation is just
that. Overall, I support the proposal.
Daniel
------------Daniel CannCasciato
Head of Cataloging
Central Washington University Library
400 E. University Way
Ellensburg, WA 98926-7548
dcc@cwu.edu
=========================================================================
Date:
Fri, 1 Jul 2005 10:35:26 -0700
Reply-To:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
Adam Schiff <aschiff@U.WASHINGTON.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established
personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050701111929.04eef770@mailhost.fiu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Sue Wartzok wrote:
> Another crazy idea occurs to me: perhaps we should enter dates in a uniform
> manner no matter whether a person was born more than 100 years ago or
> not--that is, enter birth dates in the form of "b. 1968". Such a form does
> not look as incomplete as "1968- ".
>
I don't think this idea is crazy at all, in fact, it's something I've
raised in various venues from time to time too. I think using a "b." form
for all persons when only the birth date is known at the time of
cataloging would bring consistency to our catalogs and less controversy,
as it gives no implication that a person is considered to still be alive.
When both dates are known, the current practice of giving both could still
be considered and when a person dies there would not be a need to change a
heading that just has "b. <date>".
Perhaps if there is consensus on this within the PCC, the PCC rep to CC:DA
could prepare a rule revision proposal for them (and the JSC if it passed
CC:DA) to consider.
Adam Schiff
**************************************
* Adam L. Schiff
*
* Principal Cataloger
*
* University of Washington Libraries *
* Box 352900
*
* Seattle, WA 98195-2900
* (206) 543-8409
* (206) 685-8782 fax
* aschiff@u.washington.edu
*
*
*
*
**************************************
=========================================================================
Date:
Fri, 1 Jul 2005 12:37:35 -0500
Reply-To:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
"A. Ralph Papakhian" <papakhi@INDIANA.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow addition of dates to personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
In-Reply-To: <s2c516fd.074@hermes.cwu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
hi,
fyi, the proposal that initiated the more radical proposal from CPSO
was from the Music Library Association, Bibliographic Control Committee,
Authorities Sub-Committee. the original proposal was simply
to allow NACO libraries to add brief death date information to
680 (Public General Note) [or to 678--Biographical or Historical
data--it is not clear whether 678 is public or not].
the intention was to allow for the display of information about a person
dying, even though the heading itself may not have a closing
death date. the hope was that such a public note would eliminate
some of the problems associated with the open dates--letting
the public know that we know that bob hope died even though
the heading has an open date. that hope may be naieve because
of the lack of including authority records in keyword indexes
in most (or all?) systems.
i still haven't formulated an opinion about cpso's radical
proposal to allow for the change of existing headings
by adding dates at will. although we are about to enter
the high tech land of frbr, etc., i just don't see how
it's going to be possible to synchronize thousands (maybe
tens of thousands) of library catalogs. maybe that
argues in favor of the radical proposal--since library
catalogs are already un-ynchronized, what would be
the harm of changing headings willy-nilly by adding dates?
--ralph p.
A. Ralph Papakhian, Indiana University Music Library
Bloomington, IN 47405 812/855-2970 papakhi@indiana.edu
co-owner: MLA-L@listserv.indiana.edu
===============================================================Date:
1 Jul 2005 11:27:51 -0700
Reply-To:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
Louise Ratliff <lratliff@LIBRARY.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established
personal name headings
Comments: To: PCCLIST@sun8.loc.gov
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A41.4.61b.0507011030070.158412@homer03.u.washington.edu>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline
Actually, this was the first idea that occurred to me as well, for all
the reasons set out below. However, I believe that the filing and
collocation problems in local systems speak against this approach at
this time.
--Louise
____________________________
Louise Ratliff
Social Sciences Cataloger
UCLA Library Cataloging Center
(310) 825-8642
--On Friday, July 01, 2005 10:35 AM -0700 Adam Schiff
<aschiff@U.WASHINGTON.EDU> wrote:
Fri,
> Sue Wartzok wrote:
>
>> Another crazy idea occurs to me: perhaps we should enter dates in a
>> uniform manner no matter whether a person was born more than 100
>> years ago or not--that is, enter birth dates in the form of "b.
>> 1968". Such a form does not look as incomplete as "1968- ".
>>
>
> I don't think this idea is crazy at all, in fact, it's something I've
> raised in various venues from time to time too. I think using a "b."
> form for all persons when only the birth date is known at the time of
> cataloging would bring consistency to our catalogs and less
> controversy, as it gives no implication that a person is considered
> to still be alive. When both dates are known, the current practice of
> giving both could still be considered and when a person dies there
> would not be a need to change a heading that just has "b. <date>".
>
> Perhaps if there is consensus on this within the PCC, the PCC rep to
> CC:DA could prepare a rule revision proposal for them (and the JSC if
> it passed CC:DA) to consider.
>
> Adam Schiff
>
> **************************************
> * Adam L. Schiff
*
> * Principal Cataloger
*
> * University of Washington Libraries *
> * Box 352900
*
> * Seattle, WA 98195-2900
> * (206) 543-8409
> * (206) 685-8782 fax
*
*
*
> * aschiff@u.washington.edu
*
> **************************************
=========================================================================
Date:
Fri, 1 Jul 2005 11:31:41 -0700
Reply-To:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
Gene Fieg <gfieg@CST.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established
personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A41.4.61b.0507011030070.158412@homer03.u.washington.edu>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
My only problem with your proposal is that some library integrated systems
read the b. as middle initial of the person's name. Looks very interesting
on the opac. When we first starting using our LIS here, we also found that
the system could not differentiate between numbers, such as the ISSN in the
series statement. Because we don't any further confusion, even though it
may have been cured by now, we routinely take the ISSN out of the 4XX field
Gene Fieg
Cataloger
Claremont School of Theology
gfieg@cst.edu
=========================================================================
Date:
Fri, 1 Jul 2005 14:32:53 -0400
Reply-To:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
Kent Boese <BoeseK@SI.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow addition of dates to personal name headings
Comments: To: PCCLIST@loc.gov
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
To add my two cents-I too have enjoyed this mindful banter, and while I haven't had time to
read all of the responses yet (and as such, hope I don't make a point
already noted) ... I would like to point out what I think is obvious, and is
supportive of Sherman and others who wish to leave things as they currently
stand.
The purpose of the NAR is to establish a heading that is unique. It is not
intended to provide biographical information, but rather, uses biographical
information as the easiest manner by which to identify a person uniquely.
As long as an existing heading does not conflict with any other established
heading, that should be good enough. I dare say that we all have more than
enough work to keep us busy merely in attempting to keep up with new names
needing headings to not need the extra hassle of needless database
maintenance.
Thank you all again for the discussion. I'm enjoying it.
Kent
Kent C. Boese
Arts Cataloger
Smithsonian Institution Libraries
P.O. Box 37012
NHB 30 - MRC 154
Washington, DC 20013-7012
tel. (202) 633-1644
fax. (202) 357-4532
boesek@si.edu
=========================================================================
Date:
Fri, 1 Jul 2005 11:43:06 -0700
Reply-To:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
"D. Brooking" <dbrookin@U.WASHINGTON.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established
personal name headings
Comments: To: PCCLIST@loc.gov
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
(I am resending this message to the list, since it looks like it was
initially rejected. Please forgive any duplication if it did get through
the first time.)
Sue:
I proposed to the Autocat list some years ago the idea of using "b. 1905"
instead of "1905- ". This was partially because open dates are confusing to
users (both patrons and reference librarians) and also because with the advent
of the 21st century it seemed at least that we should change the parameters on
when to leave dates open (as persons born in 1900 were perhaps not quite so
likely to be still alive as they were when LCRI 22.17 was first devised).
But the idea proved very unpopular at the time. I don't remember quite why,
except for the one concrete problem of filing in library opacs (the "b." and
the "d." used with dates get filed as letters, so the dates don't get filed
properly in chronological order with other dates). People at the time, in fact,
were proposing to close out people with death dates, claiming that the database
maintenance would not be that bad, even envisioning monitoring obituaries, etc.
Which I think just sounds like *way* too much work (and it would be too
difficult to justify the time-consuming effort).
************
Diana Brooking
(206) 543-8405
Cataloging Librarian
Suzzallo Library
(206) 685-8782 fax
dbrookin@u.washington.edu
University of Washington
Box 352900
Seattle WA 98195-2900
=========================================================================
Date:
Fri, 1 Jul 2005 14:50:52 EDT
Reply-To:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
"John C. DeSantis" <John.C.DeSantis@DARTMOUTH.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow addition of dates to personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>,
PCCLIST@sun8.loc.gov
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
I too would like to express my strong support for this proposal, =
and in addition, I must say that I'm extremely surprised by the =
concerns and opposition expressed by others.
For libraries which outsource authority control to a vendor, the =
local maintenance resulting from the changed headings would =
presumably be done automatically through the periodic updates.
For libraries which handle their authority control manually, the =
implementation of this proposal would have a more pronounced effect =
on their catalog maintenance. Such libraries could certainly =
choose not to change their headings in bib. records to match the =
altered authority record.
Frankly, I think the benefit of having death dates in headings is =
well worth any extra work caused by changes made to the headings in =
the national file.
John DeSantis
Cataloging & Metadata Services Librarian
Dartmouth College
=========================================================================
Date:
Fri, 1 Jul 2005 15:09:07 -0400
Reply-To:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
Jimmie Lundgren <JIMLUND@UFLIB.UFL.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to establis hed
personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Perhaps it would be clear enough if we just used the year of birth, without
dash or b.?
Jimmie
=========================================================================
Date:
Fri, 1 Jul 2005 15:30:05 -0400
Reply-To:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
"Stone, Alva T" <ATStone@LAW.FSU.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established
personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
The arguments for continuing the 'status quo' are esoteric. Library
users and even reference librarians do not comprehend our reasons for
omitting death dates that are known. Why should we continue to promote
a practice that makes us look like curmudgeons who focus mainly on
getting the job done with the least effort?
=20
Yes, our primary goal is to provide adequate access to library
materials. The omission of a known author's death date generally does
not impede access to his/her writings, compositions, etc. =20
=20
HOWEVER ...
=20
Let us consider common sense. When we enter an author/creator's
birthdate alongside his/her name, this sets up a reasonable expectation
that we would be giving the complete dates if and when those are known.
That is the common pattern one sees in other reference
sources-biographical dictionaries, encyclopedias, published histories,
etc. The bibliographic catalog is another reference source. We learn a
lot about a person when we see the titles s/he has written or works
created, or the words used in materials written about her/him.
Sometimes we even learn her/his full name, i.e., what that middle
initials stands or stood for. Lots and lots of personal names found in
the catalog are given with the birth dates and the death dates. It is
logical, then, to assume that when a person's name has only the birth
date, then this must mean that s/he is still alive. If we do not add
the death date for someone like Ronald Reagan, Leonard Bernstein, or
Princess Di, what does that say about us?
*
We are lazy
*
We are unknowledgable or behind-the-times
*
We don't care about accuracy
*
We are unreasonable
*
We are not using technology appropriately or lobbying our
systems vendors to make global changes more effective
=20
Now, you and I might be able to convince ourselves that those
assumptions are incorrect. But this does not negate the appearance that
we are lazy, stupid or slow, uncaring, unreasonable, or technologically
challenged. In my opinion, we need to do what is right to show that we
care about the ongoing quality of our product.
=20
1)
Add death dates to existing name authority records when these
can be verified, without regard to the impact on catalog maintenance in
individual institutions.
2)
Change LC/NACO policy so that birthdates for new Name Authority
records are not added to the established form of name unless it is
needed to distinguish two or more persons with the same name. The
birthdate should be added to the 667 field, however, to be available in
case it is needed later to differentiate between authors.
3)
Continue to request improvements in our Library Management
Systems, to make global changes simpler and more effective.
=20
Okay, that's my 20-cents.
=20
Alva T. Stone, Head of Cataloging
College of Law Library
Florida State University
Tallahassee, FL 32306-1600
=========================================================================
Date:
Fri, 1 Jul 2005 15:40:09 -0400
Reply-To:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
"ELLETT, ROBERT" <ELLETTR@JFSC.NDU.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow addition of dates to personal nam e headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I feel the need to comment on Mr. DeSantis' remarks about libraries not
changing their headings to match current authority practice:
DeSantis said:
For libraries which outsource authority control to a vendor, the local
maintenance resulting from the changed headings would presumably be done
automatically through the periodic updates.
For libraries which handle their authority control manually, the
implementation of this proposal would have a more pronounced effect on their
catalog maintenance. Such libraries could certainly choose not to change
their headings in bib. records to match the altered authority record.
One of the reasons that adoption and implementation of this proposal would
be such a nightmare would be the lack of consistency it would cause
throughout library catalogs for the very reason Mr. DeSantis stated. It is
just bad practice to adopt a policy that would promote such inconsistencies
in library catalogs. We also need to consider how this proposal would affect
the larger cataloging community of non-PCC libraries. It would certainly
make authority vendors happy campers, but it opens up a bad can of worms.
Robert O. Ellett, Jr.
Catalog Librarian
Joint Forces Staff College Library
7800 Hampton Blvd.
Norfolk, VA 23511-1702
Voice (757)443-6405
Fax (757)443-6044
=========================================================================
Date:
Fri, 1 Jul 2005 16:00:22 EDT
Reply-To:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
"John C. DeSantis" <John.C.DeSantis@DARTMOUTH.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow addition of dates to personal nam e headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>,
PCCLIST@sun8.loc.gov
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
--- "ELLETT, ROBERT" wrote:
One of the reasons that adoption and implementation of this =
proposal would
be such a nightmare would be the lack of consistency it would cause
throughout library catalogs for the very reason Mr. DeSantis =
stated.=20
--- end of quote --Just to clarify my point, I agree completely that we should try to =
avoid inconsistencies among library catalogs. Ideally libraries =
should find a way to update their catalog headings to match those =
in the national authority file. But changes to name headings =
already occur on a routine basis (for reasons other than the =
addition of death dates), and presumably libraries are already =
dealing with this phenomenon, either by implementing a procedure or =
workflow to adjust or update their headings, or by choosing to =
allow the authority records already in their catalogs to remain =
static.
John DeSantis
Cataloging & Metadata Services Librarian
Dartmouth College
=========================================================================
Date:
Fri, 1 Jul 2005 16:58:41 -0400
Reply-To:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
Amy H Turner <amy.turner@DUKE.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established
personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<P>Reading the debate over this proposal, I am struck by how much redundant=
and/or inconsistent work is being done to maintain headings in catalogs ac=
ross the country (not to mention internationally). What if we had a true un=
ion catalog, with catalog maintenance done cooperatively, using sophisticat=
ed automation? Local catalogs would facilitate a search of that subset of t=
he national bibliographic records held by the local library, and would incl=
ude holdings and item records to support serial check-in, barcoding, circul=
ation, etc. I don't know enough about technology to say how difficult it wo=
uld be to create such a catalog, and there would of course be political imp=
lications. This is a pie-in-the-sky idea, but just imagine what it would be=
like to make cataloging decisions in light of one unified catalog rather t=
han thousands of disconnected ones. &nbsp;If somebody could add Princess Di=
's death date to one authority record and then automatically update the ass=
ociated bibliographic records, would we be arguing the pros and cons? &nbsp=
;</P><P>To step back to current reality, someone proposed adding birth date=
s only in cases of conflict, to minimize work adding death dates later. &nb=
sp;However, with automated authority control, unique headings which can be =
readily associated with a single author are much easier to work with. &nbsp=
;A heading such as Turner, Amy might represent several people. &nbsp;If the=
authority record were later updated to Turner, Amy, 1957-, one should hesi=
tate before making a global change to all the Turner, Amy's in the catalog.=
&nbsp;However, a global change from Turner, Amy, 1957- to Turner, Amy, 195=
7-2057 could be made with much more confidence. &nbsp;</P><P>Although autom=
ated authority control is still in its infancy, and we may never have a tru=
e cooperative catalog, I think that we shold work towards improvements in t=
he cataloging infrastructure, and not delay changes because this infrastruc=
ture doesn't support them yet. &nbsp;I am in favor of the proposal of addin=
g death dates, recommend LTI's authority control services as a way to have =
the changes made automatically in local catalogs, and would be interested t=
o hear what others think of the pie-in-the-sky idea of true cooperative cat=
aloging (coordinated perhaps by the Program for Cooperative Cataloging). </=
P><P>Amy</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>Amy Turner</P><P>Monographic Cataloger and Auth=
ority Control Coordinator, Duke University Libraries, Durham, NC &nbsp; </P=
><P>&nbsp;</P><P></P>=
=========================================================================
Date:
Fri, 1 Jul 2005 15:09:59 -0700
Reply-To:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
Adam Schiff <aschiff@U.WASHINGTON.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow addition of dates to personal nam e headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
In-Reply-To: <132483869@newdonner.Dartmouth.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
> Just to clarify my point, I agree completely that we should try to avoid
> inconsistencies among library catalogs. Ideally libraries should find a
> way to update their catalog headings to match those in the national
> authority file. But changes to name headings already occur on a routine
> basis (for reasons other than the addition of death dates), and
> presumably libraries are already dealing with this phenomenon, either by
> implementing a procedure or workflow to adjust or update their headings,
> or by choosing to allow the authority records already in their catalogs
> to remain static.
It must be particularly difficult for libraries to keep current with
headings in which an undifferentiated personal name authority record is
broken up into more than one authorized heading. Without an authority
vendor service, I don't see how libraries could keep track of these at
all. Even with a vendor of authorities, the best one could do is get a
report that the undifferentiated record had changed and then examine it
and try to find the other new authority records that had been created and
then see if any records in your local file need updating.
We try to be very diligent about notifying OCLC about headings on bib
records that need to be changed whenever we create new authorities, but
unfortunately not all NACO libraries report BFM to the utilities since it
is only required to report it to LC. Consequently there's no doubt in my
mind that many of us already have different forms of headings for the same
entities in our catalogs.
Most of the catalogers here are in favor of the proposal, but are aware
that there will be an impact to the people who do our database
maintenance. For headings for which we have already been supplied an
authority record from our vendor, our system should be able to quickly
promulgate any changes to the heading in the authority to the
corresponding headings in our bibs. For the rest, it will have to be hit
and miss, just like it is in other cases. I think changing the rules to
use "b." in front of all single dates representing birth dates might
obviate the need in many cases to add death dates to headings when someone
dies.
Adam
**************************************
* Adam L. Schiff
*
* Principal Cataloger
*
* University of Washington Libraries *
* Box 352900
*
* Seattle, WA 98195-2900
* (206) 543-8409
* (206) 685-8782 fax
*
*
*
* aschiff@u.washington.edu
*
**************************************
=========================================================================
Date:
Fri, 1 Jul 2005 18:29:03 -0400
Reply-To:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
Sherman Clarke <sherman.clarke@NYU.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established
personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Amy Turner asked what we thought of her pie-in-the-sky idea of a true
cooperative catalog. I agree that it sounds pretty wonderful. In some
of RLG's planning for the future, they anticipate that verifying
holdings will eventually involve a Z39.50 search from the central bib
to the holding institution's database. It doesn't seem that awfully
different from a situation whereby the local catalog fetched the bib
record from the central database when it needed to display the
authorized information. I won't speculate how this relates to FRBR at
the moment.
Amy, John De Santis, and others have mentioned authority vendor
processing. This is contextual. Our local system (currently Geac
Advance) has sophisticated authority mechanisms and could handle new
versions of authority records which would change the related bib
records if overlayed. Other systems wouldn't change the bibs without
intervention. Some systems have clumsy global change.
When someone mentioned the "b." solution, I heard the voice of Ben
Tucker saying that the b.'s would file as initials. Can't remember if
it was CC:DA or some other venue.
Sherman Clarke - NYU Libraries - sherman.clarke@nyu.edu
=========================================================================
Date:
Fri, 1 Jul 2005 15:54:11 -0700
Reply-To:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
Wayne Richter <Wayne.Richter@WWU.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established
personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
John B. Wright wrote:
<<Perhaps another thing to think about would be to rethink the LCRI
encouraging us to ALWAYS add a date if it is known when we are
establishing a new heading. Some of the problems arise because we add
birthdates to name headings when birthdates are not needed to make the
headings unique.
If birthdates are not needed to distinguish a heading and are not added
to an established heading, death dates or closing dates would not be
needed either.>>
I am not in favor of John's solution. As our catalogs become more
international (and with some of the implications of FRBR), we will need
authority records as accurate and complete as we can make them. The
existing RI is a good one because it encourages NACO contributors to add
dates when they are most likely to have them. A particular name may be
considered unusual in one place but be common in another. Naming
patterns also change with time, so I do not think it is a good idea to
omit information which may be readily at hand.
I am very much in favor of the proposal to allow the addition of dates
to established personal name headings, but possibly more along the lines
of the wording suggested by Daniel CannCasciato.
Wayne V. Richter, Authority Control Coordinator, The Libraries, Western
Washington University, Bellingham, WA 98225-9103
=========================================================================
Date:
Sat, 2 Jul 2005 15:29:19 -0400
Reply-To:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
Judith Hopkins <ulcjh@BUFFALO.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow addition of dates to personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
Comments: cc: PCCLIST@sun8.loc.gov, autocat@listserv.buffalo.edu, cpso@loc.gov
In-Reply-To: <s2c516fd.074@hermes.cwu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I must admit to having mixed feelings about this proposal to add death
dates to existing personal name headings with open dates.
On the one hand I have long wanted to be able to add death dates to
established personal name headings with open dates, especially those for
well-known persons, and have been pained that the rules for authority
control did not permit it. Thus, I should be jumping with joy at the
proposal.
On the other hand, like Sherman Clarke, I am concerned about the
inconsistency that this proposal will add to catalogs. Adding a death
date to an existing authority record, knowing that many libraries that use
that record will not go back and update the bib records they already have
with the open date form of the heading, seems a recipe for confusion.
Thinking of the proposal in terms of Cutter's objectives for the catalog,
I do not see that adding a death date to an authority record will improve
the finding of a specific work, nor will it make it more difficult. As
for the collocation function of a catalog, that will be lessened AS LONG
AS SOME LIBRARIES HAVE SOME WORKS UNDER ONE FORM OF THE NAME AND
OTHERS
UNDER A DIFFERENT FORM thus making nonsense of the concept that each
variant heading represents a different person. Of course, for those
libraries that have the ability to change existing bib records with the
older form of the heading, collocation will remain with the added
advantage that the headings will now be more up-to-date and more
reflective of the known facts.
All that being said, should we base our rule changes on the capabilities
of the weakest libraries? Or should we go ahead and adopt changes and
leave it to later improvements in technology, funding, workflow, etc.
to allow those libraries to catch up? If we wait until everyone is in a
position to change we will probably never adopt anything new since that
time is unlikely ever to arrive.
To adopt the proposal or not to adopt? In the end I think I will have to
favor adopting the proposal to add death dates, if only for the personal
pleasure I get from having the headings reflect all that I know about the
person, and to prevent catalogers from being charged with ignorance,
laziness, etc.
cc: cpso
*************************************************************************
Judith Hopkins
Norcross, GA 30092-1872
ULCJH@BUFFALO.EDU
JUDITHHOPKINS@EARTHLINK.NET
Web page: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~ulcjh/
Listowner of AUTOCAT@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU
(http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/units/cts/autocat)
*************************************************************************
=========================================================================
Date:
Sat, 2 Jul 2005 16:17:06 -0500
Reply-To:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
gary Strawn <mrsmith@NORTHWESTERN.EDU>
Subject:
Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established personal
name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>,
PCCLIST@sun8.loc.gov
Comments: cc: cpso@loc.gov
In-Reply-To: <38416ea3840158.384015838416ea@nyu.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
I have been enjoying this discussion of the proposed policy, and intend to
weigh in with my own overwrought opinion before the deadline. I thought
some numbers might be of interest.
The most recent LC names weekly file processed here (lcname05.25) contains
8830 authority records, of which 5642 represent simple personal name
headings (tag 100; subfield $t is not present). Of those 5642 simple
personal name headings:
New record, subfield $d code not present: 2670
New record, subfield $d code present: 979
Delete record, subfield $d code not present: 52
Delete record, subfield $d code present: 18
Replacement record, subfield $d code not present in incoming heading: 1279
Replacement record, subfield $d code present in incoming heading: 644
The previous version of the heading in 29 of the 644 replacement records
did not contain the subfield $d code: these 29 records appear to have been
changed to add a date. Of these 29 headings, in 3 cases the earlier
headings actually contained dates, but mistakenly lacked the subfield $d
code itself; in 3 other cases headings were changed in other ways at the
same time the date was added. Of the 23 personal name headings in this file
that differ only in the addition of subfield $d and dates, a strict
definition of what constitutes a "conflict" (and searching only in the
authority file itself) leads me to label 6 headings as having been changed
as the result of a conflict, and 17 to have been changed in the absence of
a conflict. Here are two examples of each:
n 79044092: Jensen, Eric, $d 1950Date added to existing heading to make way for new heading without date
n 84113305: Murphy, Peter E., $d 1942Date added to existing heading to make way for new heading without date
no 2005007464: Manistina, Elena, $d 1973Date added to non-conflicting heading
no 2005053962: Wallace, Patricia H., $d 1947Date added to non-conflicting heading
Although numbers are small, there does appear to be at least one
sub-category of headings that might be recognized among the 17 headings
changed without evidence of conflict. The reconstruction of events for
these might be one of the following: 1) the institution that established
the heading missed a date of birth that appeared somewhere in the
publication, the date was found by another institution handling the same
item and the second institution changed the 670 and the heading; 2) the
heading was established from CIP information, a date of birth arrived with
the full publication and the 670 and heading were changed. I do not believe
that any such are included in the above examples.
I searched a 10% sample of the 979 new records for simple personal names
with $d (97 headings examined), in the authority file. Using a looser
definition of conflict than used above for changed headings (allowing the
addition of dates to a new heading if not strictly required to break a
conflict, when similar headings exist), I determined that 21 of the
headings (22%) contained $d because it was needed to break a conflict or
made a set of headings easier to understand; and 76 (78%) contained $d
because it was available but was not required or particularly useful. Here
are two examples of each:
n 2005043497: Feenie, Rob, $d 1965No other 'Feenie, Rob' in authority file
n 2005043541: Sikora, Ruzhena, $d 1918No other 'Sikora, Ruzhena' in authority file
n 2005044002: Rosen, David, $d 1971Date required: 'Rosen, David' with no date already established
n 2005044208: Coleman, Brian, $d 1970Date required: 'Coleman, David' with no date already established
Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc.
Northwestern University, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300
e-mail: mrsmith@northwestern.edu voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit.
=========================================================================
Date:
Tue, 5 Jul 2005 08:15:33 -0600
Reply-To:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
John Wright <John_Wright@BYU.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established
personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Just to add to my previous comment: I agree with Wayne that we should
make the authority records as accurate and as complete as possible. My
suggestion to rethink the LCRI does nothing to make an authority record
less accurate or less complete. Certainly all information found about a
person, including his/her date of birth and/or death would be added to
the authority record in 670 fields, but that information would only
appear in the heading if it were needed to break a conflict. Because it
would still be found in the 670 field, it could be used at a later time
to help break a conflict and keep the heading unique. =20
Regards,
John
-----Original Message----From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:PCCLIST@loc.gov] On
Behalf Of Wayne Richter
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 4:54 PM
To: PCCLIST@sun8.LOC.GOV
Subject: Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established
personal name headings
John B. Wright wrote:
<<Perhaps another thing to think about would be to rethink the LCRI
encouraging us to ALWAYS add a date if it is known when we are
establishing a new heading. Some of the problems arise because we add
birthdates to name headings when birthdates are not needed to make the
headings unique.
If birthdates are not needed to distinguish a heading and are not added
to an established heading, death dates or closing dates would not be
needed either.>>
I am not in favor of John's solution. As our catalogs become more
international (and with some of the implications of FRBR), we will need
authority records as accurate and complete as we can make them. The
existing RI is a good one because it encourages NACO contributors to add
dates when they are most likely to have them. A particular name may be
considered unusual in one place but be common in another. Naming
patterns also change with time, so I do not think it is a good idea to
omit information which may be readily at hand.
I am very much in favor of the proposal to allow the addition of dates
to established personal name headings, but possibly more along the lines
of the wording suggested by Daniel CannCasciato.
Wayne V. Richter, Authority Control Coordinator, The Libraries, Western
Washington University, Bellingham, WA 98225-9103
=========================================================================
Date:
Tue, 5 Jul 2005 10:37:08 -0400
Reply-To:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
Kent Boese <BoeseK@SI.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established
personal name headings
Comments: To: PCCLIST@loc.gov
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Just to build on this, and from the many opinions expressed on this topic, I
think that we have reached a philosophical crossroads. On the one hand, we
have the true function/purpose of the NAR ... on the other hand, we have the
desired form and data that we would like in the record, but don't actually
need.
Many established headings actually have incorrect birth information that
have come from authoritative sources (think actors and actresses here), but
these dates make the name unique and were as accurate as could be at the
time of creation.
I agree with John and Wayne that the record should be as accurate as
possible when created. I do not agree that the heading should be as complete
as possible. That goes against the grain of literary warrant, and actually
seems to be embracing LC policy prior to AACR, where full names were used in
headings, often not representing the form of name known by most library
users.
In this respect, I echo John's sentiment below.
Kent
Kent C. Boese
Arts Cataloger
Editor, The Bottom Line: Managing Library Finances
Smithsonian Institution Libraries
P.O. Box 37012
NHB 30 - MRC 154
Washington, DC 20013-7012
tel. (202) 633-1644
fax. (202) 357-4532
boesek@si.edu
>>> John_Wright@BYU.EDU 07/05/05 10:15AM >>>
Just to add to my previous comment: I agree with Wayne that we should
make the authority records as accurate and as complete as possible. My
suggestion to rethink the LCRI does nothing to make an authority record
less accurate or less complete. Certainly all information found about a
person, including his/her date of birth and/or death would be added to
the authority record in 670 fields, but that information would only
appear in the heading if it were needed to break a conflict. Because it
would still be found in the 670 field, it could be used at a later time
to help break a conflict and keep the heading unique.
Regards,
John
=========================================================================
Date:
Tue, 5 Jul 2005 09:28:48 -1000
Reply-To:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
Nancy Sack <sack@HAWAII.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established
personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.2.20050702151808.1166d000@merle.it.northwestern.ed u>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Are you saying that catalogers have been unneccessarily adding death dates
all along? I'm shocked. SHOCKED!
>I have been enjoying this discussion of the proposed policy, and intend to
>weigh in with my own overwrought opinion before the deadline. I thought
>some numbers might be of interest.
>
>The most recent LC names weekly file processed here (lcname05.25) contains
>8830 authority records, of which 5642 represent simple personal name
>headings (tag 100; subfield $t is not present). Of those 5642 simple
>personal name headings:
>
New record, subfield $d code not present: 2670
>
New record, subfield $d code present: 979
>
Delete record, subfield $d code not present: 52
>
Delete record, subfield $d code present: 18
>
Replacement record, subfield $d code not present in incoming
> heading: 1279
>
Replacement record, subfield $d code present in incoming heading: 644
>
>The previous version of the heading in 29 of the 644 replacement records
>did not contain the subfield $d code: these 29 records appear to have been
>changed to add a date. Of these 29 headings, in 3 cases the earlier
>headings actually contained dates, but mistakenly lacked the subfield $d
>code itself; in 3 other cases headings were changed in other ways at the
>same time the date was added. Of the 23 personal name headings in this file
>that differ only in the addition of subfield $d and dates, a strict
>definition of what constitutes a "conflict" (and searching only in the
>authority file itself) leads me to label 6 headings as having been changed
>as the result of a conflict, and 17 to have been changed in the absence of
>a conflict. Here are two examples of each:
>
>
n 79044092: Jensen, Eric, $d 1950-
>
Date added to existing heading to make way for new heading without
> date
>
>
n 84113305: Murphy, Peter E., $d 1942-
>
Date added to existing heading to make way for new heading without
> date
>
>
no 2005007464: Manistina, Elena, $d 1973-
>
Date added to non-conflicting heading
>
>
no 2005053962: Wallace, Patricia H., $d 1947-
>
Date added to non-conflicting heading
>
>Although numbers are small, there does appear to be at least one
>sub-category of headings that might be recognized among the 17 headings
>changed without evidence of conflict. The reconstruction of events for
>these might be one of the following: 1) the institution that established
>the heading missed a date of birth that appeared somewhere in the
>publication, the date was found by another institution handling the same
>item and the second institution changed the 670 and the heading; 2) the
>heading was established from CIP information, a date of birth arrived with
>the full publication and the 670 and heading were changed. I do not believe
>that any such are included in the above examples.
>
>I searched a 10% sample of the 979 new records for simple personal names
>with $d (97 headings examined), in the authority file. Using a looser
>definition of conflict than used above for changed headings (allowing the
>addition of dates to a new heading if not strictly required to break a
>conflict, when similar headings exist), I determined that 21 of the
>headings (22%) contained $d because it was needed to break a conflict or
>made a set of headings easier to understand; and 76 (78%) contained $d
>because it was available but was not required or particularly useful. Here
>are two examples of each:
>
>
n 2005043497: Feenie, Rob, $d 1965-
>
No other 'Feenie, Rob' in authority file
>
>
n 2005043541: Sikora, Ruzhena, $d 1918-
>
No other 'Sikora, Ruzhena' in authority file
>
>
n 2005044002: Rosen, David, $d 1971-
>
Date required: 'Rosen, David' with no date already established
>
>
n 2005044208: Coleman, Brian, $d 1970-
>
Date required: 'Coleman, David' with no date already established
>
>Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc.
>Northwestern University, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300
>e-mail: mrsmith@northwestern.edu voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306
>Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit.
=========================================================================
Date:
Tue, 5 Jul 2005 14:54:54 -0500
Reply-To:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
gary Strawn <mrsmith@NORTHWESTERN.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established
personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>,
PCCLIST@sun8.loc.gov
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050705092725.01cf1150@mail.hawaii.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 02:28 PM 7/5/2005, Nancy Sack wrote:
>Are you saying that catalogers have been unneccessarily adding death dates
>all along? I'm shocked. SHOCKED!
I'm thinking of sending something like the following. Any comments?
How refreshing it is to have extended discussion on a matter of policy on
the PCC list! It will be interesting to see whether any of our comments has
any effect on the final policy.
While I think it is possible for us to come to consensus on the small point
raised by the proposed policy change, I think it would be better if we
looked at the larger question first (and at all kinds of headings, not just
personal names), and then see how this particular issue fits in. I think
we do better when we have a set of general principles that we should
normally follow, rather than only a series of policies addressing
individual situations.
I would take as the starting point the assumption that adequate resources
(in-house personnel--regarded in terms of both quantity and ability, local
system features, money for outsourcing, outsourcing vendor capabilities,
and perhaps other considerations) are not available at most institutions
for the reliable and efficient performance of database changes. If true,
this would for me imply that we should reduce as much as possible the need
for heading maintenance: whatever maintenance we are able to perform must
be maintenance that makes a difference for catalog users (of any type,
including library staff). To put it another way: headings should not be
changed unless change is necessary.
So for me, the general question might be restated like this: When is it
necessary that an existing heading be changed? Several clearly-delimited
categories come immediately to mind:
1) When an existing heading contains errors of fact (typographical
errors, for example)
2) When an existing heading conflicts with another existing heading
3) When an existing heading conflicts with a heading being
constructed, and it is not possible to adjust the new heading to avoid the
conflict
Viewed in this way, a change to an existing non-conflicting heading simply
because more information has become available is an unnecessary change and
should not be allowed. So if for example a person's date of birth or the
full form for a name represented in a personal name heading by an initial
becomes available but the person's heading is not in conflict, the
birthdate or other information should be recorded in a proper 670 field
(not a 678!) for future use, and the heading should stand unchanged. (I
would extend this principle also to headings constructed for CIP materials.
Once the authority record has been distributed, the heading is established;
the heading should not be changed simply because more information such as
date of birth or full form of a name has become available--even if the
additional information comes from the published form of the very item for
which the heaidng was established. I would similarly extend this principle
to cases in which the person who established the heading missed information
in the item for which the heading was established: add dates, full names
etc. to the 670 field for the item, but leave the heading alone.)
* * * * Digression
To move for the moment from the abstract to the particular, assume we have
this set of established headings:
Smith, Flash
Smith, Flash, $d 1952Smith, Flash, $d 1960If we discover the birthdate for the first Flash after the heading has been
established, we may add a new 670 field to Flash's authority record (or
modify an existing 670 field if an existing 670 field is incomplete).
Because there are no conflicting headings, we make no change to any of the
headings.
If we are cataloging a new item for a Flash that we determine is none of
the existing Flashes and we have the date of birth for the new Flash, we
include the date of birth in the new heading, and leave the existing
headings alone.
Smith, Flash
Smith, Flash, $d 1952Smith, Flash, $d 1960Smith, Flash, $d 1965- <a new heading>
But if we are cataloging a new item for a Flash that we determine is none
of the existing Flashes and we do not have the date of birth for the new
Flash but we have in the authority record a date of birth for the existing
no-date-in-heading Flash (July 2, 1954, say), then we change the existing
heading to include the date of birth, to make way for the new heading:
Smith, Flash <a new heading>
Smith, Flash, $d 1952Smith, Flash, $d 1954- <formerly "Smith, Flash">
Smith, Flash, $d 1960Or consider the following set of established headings:
Smith, Flash, $d d. 1792
Smith, Flash, $d 1781-1824
If we discover the birthdate for the first Flash, we add a new 670 field to
the authority record for that heading, and leave the heading itself alone,
because there is no conflict. (I would not bat an eye if someone added to
the authority record a reference tracing that included the birth and death
dates. But there are many changes to policy for reference tracings that
might be suggested and I'd like not to stray too far from the main point.
Save that for another time.)
* * * * End of digression
We might choose to define one exception to the general principle ("make no
change unless it is necessary") and clearly label it as an exception: If an
existing personal name heading contains a date of birth and it is
discovered that the person is no longer living, the heading may be changed
to include the date of death if known or to insert "b." before the date of
birth if the year of death is not known. The reason for allowing this
exception has been stated by others several times: it makes us look stupid
to indicate in our catalogs that Sartre is not yet dead. We'll abandon
principle in this case for cosmetic or public relations reasons. In this
kind of change (when the former personal name heading contains a date) the
automatic flipping of headings by program without operator review will not
result in incorrect reassignment except in the most unusual cases (once
every 20 years, I'm thinking). Note that this exception applies only to
headings for persons that include an "open" date; under the general
principle, I would not have us add a death date to an existing
non-conflicting heading that contained no dates at all.
Another exception we might recognize comes immediately to mind: If a
corporate body is constructed provisionally because the form of name in the
appropriate language is not available and the proper language form later
becomes available, then it is correct to change the heading to reflect the
proper language. (So a heading for an Algerian government agency
constructed in English because that's all that was available at the time
would be changed to reflect the Arabic (or whatever) form when that form
was encountered.)
For me, the need to keep maintenance to a minimum also means that headings
should be constructed from the beginning with an eye on future upkeep. So I
think there is a great deal of merit in one of the counter-proposals made
by Alva Stone. As I would restate the proposal, we would retitle the
"Headings that do not conflict" section from LCRI 22.17 "Headings for
persons known to be deceased that do not conflict:" we would no longer add
dates to non-conflicting headings for persons assumed to be living at the
time of heading creation. (One small and unscientific sample indicates that
3/4 of new personal name headings with dates don't actually need the dates
to resolve conflicts.) In the authority records for persons assumed to be
living we would include birth dates along with other information as a
matter of course in 670 fields; if information such as dates were
discovered at a later time, they could be added to the authority record
(again, in 670 fields).Should headings come into conflict, information in
authority records (and other sources as necessary) would be consulted and
dates added here or there as policy and need dictate. Maintenance would be
performed only when needed, and headings would also not contain "open"
dates for patrons to complain about.
Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc.
Northwestern University, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300
e-mail: mrsmith@northwestern.edu voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit.
=========================================================================
Date:
Tue, 5 Jul 2005 16:42:40 -0400
Reply-To:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
Judith A Schneider <SchneiderJ@GAO.GOV>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established
personal name headings
Comments: To: AUTOCAT@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU, PCCLIST@loc.gov
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
I've been following this discussion with interest. For what it's worth, =
here's my opinion:
1. I think that death dates should be added when we have them. Most =
especially for prominent people, but for others as well. One of the =
hardest reference questions to answer is "is this person still alive". We =
have the capability to enhance one source available to our reference =
colleagues. And if we enhance the catalog, it'll make it easier for =
reference librarians to find the answer quickly.
2. I deeply resent the fact that such policy decisions are driven by the =
lack of capabilities in our technological tools. It is unconscionable that =
any library system vendor offers a product with a poor, or worse, no, =
authority control system. It is also unconscionable that any library =
system vendor would offer a product that doesn't allow for efficient =
global updating of headings. I belive that we must _demand_ (not ask =
nicely for) these capabilities from our vendors, and let them know with =
our dollars that we will not settle for less than what we need. I =
understand that there are libraries who are not automated. Could they not =
intefile cards with death dates with the ones that do not have death =
dates?
3. I am puzzled by the discussion of "inconsistencies across library =
catalogs". When we download records into our system, we make changes to =
the record to meet our local needs. I find it really hard to believe that =
we are the only library to do this. Surely this creates inconsistencies =
already, having death dates in some headings doesn't seem to me to add =
that much inconsistency to an already inconsistent culture.=20
Just my $.35.
Judy Schneider
US GAO Library
schneiderj@gao.gov
(202) 512-4304
My opinions are mine! All Mine!
So many books .... So little time
=========================================================================
Date:
Tue, 5 Jul 2005 14:01:07 -0700
Reply-To:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
Adam Schiff <aschiff@U.WASHINGTON.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established
personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
Comments: cc: PCCLIST@sun8.loc.gov
In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.2.20050705145433.0286f840@merle.it.northwestern.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
I agree with Gary's proposal except for the last paragraph of it.
Instead, I would rather see the birth date given in a newly establishe
heading any time it is known. This would obviate the need to have to
change that heading later when it comes into conflict with another
heading. Otherwise, I think Gary's proposal limiting the addition of
dates on already established headings to these situations is a good one:
1) any kind of date or dates need to be added to previously established
heading to break a conflict with another established or newly established
heading
2) death date added to established heading with an open date of birth (so
we don't look foolish; those libraries who receive notifications or new
copies of changed headings should not have much extra work to do for a
change like this if the change of the authority heading automatically
propagates to the corresponding bib. records)
3) open data of birth on established heading changed to "b." date
if known that the person has died but date of birth unknown (again,
changed so that we don't look foolish and those libraries with an
authority service that receive notifications or copies of changed records
that already matched one of their bibs. should have a fairly simple time
getting their matching bib. records changed)
--Adam
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
aschiff@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date:
Tue, 5 Jul 2005 16:37:58 -0500
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
gary Strawn <mrsmith@NORTHWESTERN.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established
personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>,
PCCLIST@sun8.loc.gov
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A41.4.61b.0507051342290.75088@homer09.u.washington.ed u>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
I actually only intended to send the thing out to one person, not the whole
list. Sorry about that.
At 04:01 PM 7/5/2005, Adam Schiff wrote:
>I agree with Gary's proposal except for the last paragraph of it.
>Instead, I would rather see the birth date given in a newly establishe
>heading any time it is known. This would obviate the need to have to
>change that heading later when it comes into conflict with another
>heading.
My tiny point may have been lost in the two separate messages: If we add
birth dates to every personal name heading for which dates are availablethen we
eventually have to change 100% of the headings that have open
dates; but if we only add birth dates to the 25% (or so) of personal name
headings that actually need them then that we'll later have to change that
25% but many of the remaining 75% will never come into conflict and will
never have to be changed.
Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc.
Northwestern University, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300
e-mail: mrsmith@northwestern.edu voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit.
===============================================================
==========
Date:
Tue, 5 Jul 2005 18:02:53 -0400
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
Sue <swartzok@FIU.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established
personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
In-Reply-To: <s2cab88f.097@GAOGWIA1.GAO.GOV>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 04:42 PM 7/5/2005, Judy Schneider wrote:
>I deeply resent the fact that such policy decisions are driven by the lack
>of capabilities in our technological tools. It is unconscionable that any
>library system vendor offers a product with a poor, or worse, no,
>authority control system. It is also unconscionable that any library
>system vendor would offer a product that doesn't allow for efficient
>global updating of headings. I belive that we must _demand_ (not ask
>nicely for) these capabilities from our vendors, and let them know with
>our dollars that we will not settle for less than what we need.
Since I wrote previously, I have learned more about Aleph's authority
control issues. First, it will not be until release 18 (2 to 3 years) that
the problems are even partially fixed. I'm sending out this additional
info because I know that there are quite a few large libraries using this
system--Harvard, Iowa, MIT, McGill, U. Minn. and Boston College--were
mentioned in a recent posting.
Here is a quote from another posting (I will leave it uncredited because I
don't want to get anyone into trouble):
"Authorities are linked to bib headings in Aleph. There is also a function
that automatically updates bib headings when the authority 1xx to which
they're linked changes, which works correctly probably 80-90% of the time.
The problem is when the linking and auto updating don't work,
results are odd and recovery can be difficult. Here are three
categories of bad actions:
1. A bib heading links to the incorrect authority ("England" as a personal
pseudonym vs. "England" as a geographic area).
2. A correct form is changed to an incorrect form via linking to a
4xx in the wrong authority ("Sin" the moral concept is changed to "China"
via the 4xx "Sin" in the China authority).
3. The heading that's correct in one thesaurus is changed to the heading
that's correct in another thesaurus, again via a 4xx linked to the wrong
authority ("Tumor" in a 650 0 is changed to "Neoplasms", the correct MeSH
term, via the 4xx "Tumor" in the MeSH record).
These problems stem from Aleph's assumption that all headings in all
authority records are unique. No 4xx is supposed to match a 1xx in the
same thesaurus or another. Each 4xx is supposed to be unique as well.
Think of how many authorities contain a 4xx for "ALA" or "MLA" and you'll
see where this assumption is big trouble. The Aleph linking examines only
the first character of the tag in the linking decision. It doesn't check
digits 2 & 3 or the bib indicators or the thesaurus code in the 008/11.
It also doesn't check the use codes. You can imagine all the places
linking (and automatic updating) can go wrong under the circumstances.
Because of all the problems, we load authority records with automatic
updating turned off. This is done by loading them with UPD set to N (for
"no") rather than Y.
Aleph version 18 contains major improvements to the linking logic. The
programs will examine the last two characters in the tag as part of the
process. It still won't take into account the thesaurus (008/11) or the
use codes, but this is major progress."
This info on corporate names and subject headings may appear tangential to
the discussion of dates in personal name headings. However, it is my
understanding that when authority changes are loaded, you can't set some
headings for automatic updating and other headings not for automatic
updating. We're not live on Aleph yet but, once we are, automatic updating
will be off.
I would love to be able to provide the public service that would result
from the PCC proposal. However, I think our policy decisions have to
continue to be driven by the lack of capabilities in our technological
tools. I would urge implementation of the proposal but not until
technology makes it practicable in another 3 to 5 years.
Sue
Sue Wartzok
Head, Cataloging Department
Green Library
University Park Campus
Florida International University
Miami, Florida 33199
Phone: (305) 348-6269
Fax: (305) 348-1798
===============================================================
==========
Date:
Tue, 5 Jul 2005 17:21:33 -0500
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
Stephen Hearn <s-hear@UMN.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established
personal name headings
Comments: To: PCCLIST@loc.gov
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
I agree with Sherman Clarke et al. that a limited policy of adding dates to
prominent names would satisfy the majority of the complaints arising from
the current policy, and that opening the gates more widely for this
practice would set us up for maintaining lots of headings which have never
provoked a complaint from users. We'd have plenty to do fixing headings for
prominent names.
Since this proposal is apparently being driven mainly by user complaints,
and since we know that realistically it will result in an increase in the
number of split personal name headings in our catalogs (i.e., two different
entries for the same person), and since most catalogs I've used (ours
included) have a fair number of those already--I'm curious whether anyone
has ever received complaints about split headings? My guess is such
complaints are fairly rare, but that's just a guess. Lots of people
wouldn't recognize them, and I doubt that reporting a split heading can
beat the righteous zing that of informing a "know-it-all" librarian that
some open-dated notable is dead. On the other hand, the potential loss of
information and access for the user in the case of an unrecognized heading
split is surely greater; but as long as no one complains ...
I'd also like to raise an implementation issue which needs to be addressed
before the proposal can be adequately evaluated. How will the original
undated or partially dated form be preserved on the authority? Or will it?
For some systems, having the original form as a 400 reference would make
automated updating easier; for others, ensuring a continuous identity
between the person and the LCCN would suffice. Even for systems that could
use a 400, though, the thought of letting one's system or one's authority
vendor change less specific undated bib name headings to more specific
dated headings might give one pause, especially if the proposed updating
practice is allowed for all personal names. I really doubt that we'll want
to trust automated processes to handle all the authority issues that will
result from the proposed change.
Stephen
****************************************************
Stephen Hearn
Authority Control Coord./Database Mgmt. Section Head
Technical Services Dept.
University of Minnesota
160 Wilson Library
Voice: 612-625-2328
309 19th Avenue South
Fax: 612-625-3428
Minneapolis, MN 55455
E-mail: s-hear@tc.umn.edu
===============================================================
==========
Date:
Tue, 5 Jul 2005 19:48:18 -0400
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
Subject:
Amy H Turner <amy.turner@DUKE.EDU>
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established
personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<P>Sue Wartzok wrote about the weaknesses of Aleph's authority control modu=
le. Duke recently implemented Aleph, and we have no intention of using its =
capacity to update headings, even after the promised changes. LTI, our auth=
ority vendor, provides updated bibliographic records as well as revised aut=
hority records. Many of the changes are more sophisticated than matching ag=
ainst references or updating headings to reflect updated ARs. For example, =
they correct the order of subject subdivisions, and regularize volume desig=
nators in series tracings. They also have years of experience in preventing=
problems that can be caused by ambiguous references. <BR><BR>To repeat a p=
oint that has been made by several posters in several ways, we should work =
to improve our capabilities for updating headings, rather than delay change=
s because of weaknesses in the technology. After the technology is in place=
, the headings can be corrected retroactively. At Duke, we were without eff=
ective authority control for many years, and loaded recon records with prob=
lems much more significant than discrepencies in death dates. &nbsp;It was =
a real mess until we started using LTI's services, and then suddenly it was=
a lot better. &nbsp;(Sadly, I don't think the patrons really noticed, but =
I do believe they benefitted.)</P><P>Re Gary Strawn's point about saving wo=
rk by not adding birth dates except in case of conflict, with LTI it takes =
no local staff time to add a death date to a heading with a birth date (exc=
ept some fraction of the time spent loading the updated records). &nbsp;How=
ever, when a date is added to a heading previously lacking one, LTI wisely =
doesn't make the change automatically. &nbsp; These must be reviewed by a h=
uman being, who often finds that two, three or even more different people w=
ere represented by one name without dates. &nbsp; Dealing with these change=
s is the most time-consuming part of my job as authority control coordinato=
r. &nbsp;</P><P>I hope this isn't turning into too much of an advertisement=
for LTI :-). &nbsp; I am using them as an example of the sort of changes t=
hat can be made with no human intervention. &nbsp;I would like to repeat my=
support for the proposal, looking toward a future where automated updating=
of headings (including those which have gone uncorrected for years) will b=
e the norm. </P><P>Amy Turner</P><P>Monographic Cataloger and Authority Con=
trol Coordinator, Duke University Libraries, Durham, NC &nbsp;</P>=
===============================================================
==========
Date:
Wed, 6 Jul 2005 15:53:38 +0800
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
From:
Subject:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Saralee <saralee@SILAS.ORG.SG>
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established
personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I have followed this discussion with much interest. I agree with Adam =
Schiff's comments below. =20
I can appreciate that it is worthwhile, whenever possible and desirable, =
to replace a personal name heading with a birth date with a heading that =
includes the death date. This is extra work and doesn't really improve =
authority control but as a public relations exercise, it has merit. =20
However, I wish to state in the strongest terms I can, that to change =
the RI which asks us to include the birthdate (or dates) when known =
would greatly increase our work (here in Singapore) and would most =
likely result in degrading what authority control we have in the area of =
personal name headings. =20
As many of you will know, Singapore's population is largely ethnically =
Chinese. The Chinese in Singapore draw their surnames from a pool of the =
'100 common surnames' and now often combine these common surnames with =
'English' given names. We go to some trouble to find out birthdates of =
these authors just to save precious resources later when another author =
by the same name is published. In addiiton, many of the 'Chinese' given =
names (dialect, not Pinyin) are used extensively. I would love a dollar =
for every name heading that we've established that has 'Eng' (an =
evergreen popular Hokkien given name that means 'eternal') in it. =20
We already have difficulties with the headings used in LC bibliographic =
records that don't reflect a date and where we know that sooner or later =
a conflict will emerge. At this point we are content to put the =
additional date information in a 670 and replace later when the conflict =
does emerge but a limited diet of this type of activity is definitely in =
order.
The study Gary cited in which it was found most of the headings that =
contain dates don't involve conflicts in future begs several questions, =
such as length of time before conflicts arise; and, the resources =
invested in breaking conflicts with the review of large bibliographic =
record files. =20
Saralee Turner
NACO Coordinator
SILAS (Singapore Integrated Library Automation Services)
Adam Schiff wrote:
I agree with Gary's proposal except for the last paragraph of it.
Instead, I would rather see the birth date given in a newly establishe
heading any time it is known. This would obviate the need to have to
change that heading later when it comes into conflict with another
heading. Otherwise, I think Gary's proposal limiting the addition of
dates on already established headings to these situations is a good one:
1) any kind of date or dates need to be added to previously established
heading to break a conflict with another established or newly =
established
heading
2) death date added to established heading with an open date of birth =
(so
we don't look foolish; those libraries who receive notifications or new
copies of changed headings should not have much extra work to do for a
change like this if the change of the authority heading automatically
propagates to the corresponding bib. records)
3) open data of birth on established heading changed to "b." date
if known that the person has died but date of birth unknown (again,
changed so that we don't look foolish and those libraries with an
authority service that receive notifications or copies of changed =
records
that already matched one of their bibs. should have a fairly simple time
getting their matching bib. records changed)
--Adam
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
aschiff@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---------------------------------------StarBiz - Visit http://www.starbiz.net.sg
===============================================================
==========
Date:
Wed, 6 Jul 2005 07:54:40 -0400
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
Jimmie Lundgren <JIMLUND@UFLIB.UFL.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to establis hed
personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C58221.7DD01E10"
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C58221.7DD01E10
Content-Type: text/plain
Thank you all for this very interesting discussion of the pros and cons of
the proposal. I am impressed with the clear and thoughtful observations. The
list is getting to be pretty comprehensive, but I don't think there has been
much talk so far about how the use of OCLC's new CONNEXION 'Controlled
headings all" relates. It has become an important part of the workflow for
many of us.
Since migration to a new system and the loss of our beloved CLARR toolkit
that we used with our former NOTIS system, (forever thanks to Gary Strawn
for creating it), we do much more of our actual cataloging work in OCLC. We
generally try to check headings in each bibliographic record before
exporting. With personal name headings, if there is a date or dates in the
heading OCLC can control the heading automatically (positively match it with
an authority record if there is one). If there is not, the person working on
the record must examine the authority record(s) individually. The more
headings include dates, the less time will be spent individually verifying
headings when using CONNEXION, and the less it costs my library. For this
reason I support the proposal.
Also, I wasn't kidding when I suggested we stop using a dash or a "b." with
year of birth. For most authors I do not believe we or our users will ever
know or need to know when they go to their final rest. Using a dash implies
that we intend to complete the heading with year of death, and is probably
carried over from the days when we would have left a blank spot on a card to
type in a date. Following the year of birth with a period makes better sense
to me as a complete statement of year of birth. We could continue to
distinguish the less frequent usages of date of death or date flourished
with d. and fl. Those better-known persons whose year of death does become
known should have that information added in my opinion, and the dash can
then be included to link the two years. Is there some reason this would not
be possible?
Thanks and best regards,
Jimmie Lundgren
===============================================================
==========
Date:
Wed, 6 Jul 2005 09:26:35 -0500
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
gary Strawn <mrsmith@NORTHWESTERN.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established
personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>,
PCCLIST@sun8.loc.gov
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050705164346.03aede40@s-hear.email.umn.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 05:21 PM 7/5/2005, Stephen Hearn wrote:
>I'd also like to raise an implementation issue which needs to be addressed
>before the proposal can be adequately evaluated. How will the original
>undated or partially dated form be preserved on the authority? Or will it?
>For some systems, having the original form as a 400 reference would make
>automated updating easier; for others, ensuring a continuous identity
>between the person and the LCCN would suffice. Even for systems that could
>use a 400, though, the thought of letting one's system or one's authority
>vendor change less specific undated bib name headings to more specific
>dated headings might give one pause, especially if the proposed updating
>practice is allowed for all personal names. I really doubt that we'll want
>to trust automated processes to handle all the authority issues that will
>result from the proposed change.
Stephen: Thanks for bringing this up. As you are aware, there have been
task forces and committees studying the issue of links for former headings,
whose recommendations I think have yet to be put into effect.
In my own work, I've found great value in preserving the old heading
somewhere, somehow. Instead of describing my current scheme, which works
well enough for many things, I'd like to mention what my next authority
loader will do. (To be put into production within a month, should
everything including our move to Voyager with Unicode (TM) go to plan. To
be made available to other Voyager customers after sufficient
testing.) When reading this description, it may be good to bear in mind
that at NUL we load the entire LC/NACO authority file, not to mention LCSH
and MeSH, into our local authority file, and we do not use an external
authority vendor. When the authority loader notes that any part of a
heading has changed (including tag and indicators), it adds a 688 field to
the local copy of the authority record showing the time and date of the
change, and sometimes the nature of the change as well. (The new authority
loader will initiate heading change requests on its own, in certain
carefully-defined and operator-selectable cases, and pass the remainder
along for review.) Because the 688 field only has subfield $a (well, it
has $5, $6 and $8, but you know what I mean) I've had to come up with my
own conventions for subfield codes.
Here are models of the various types of 688 fields; in these examples,
"<date>" represents the year, month and day from the 005 field of the
incoming record:
Heading changed <date> from: <1XX from previous version of this
record> $5 <local institution code>
Heading coded 'unique' until <date> $5 <local institution code>
Heading coded 'non-unique' until <date> $5 <local institution code>
Heading split <date> from non-unique name: <heading from
pre-overlay version of record identified via LCCN in incoming record's 667
field> $5 <local institution code>
We add subfield $5 to these fields--as we do to all variable fields we add
to an LC/NACO authority record--so they can be carried forward
automatically (unless duplicated) when we receive an update to the record.
Here is a typical example of a changed heading from the 2005/25 names file,
following the first model:
Heading changed 20050614 from: 100:1#: _$a Warwick, Frances Evelyn
Maynard Greville, _$c Countess of, _$d 1861-1933 $5 IEN
Programs such as the cataloger's toolkit for Voyager, when presented with
an authority record bearing such a field, can reverse the translation of
subfield codes and treat this 688 as if it were a reference tracing for the
purposes of identifying candidate bibliographic records to be changed.
This isn't the most elegant solution, and it relies on local programming
for fullest effect; but it allows us to carry on with our work while we
wait for an "official" way to achieve the same end.
Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc.
Northwestern University, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300
e-mail: mrsmith@northwestern.edu voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit.
===============================================================
==========
Date:
Wed, 6 Jul 2005 09:33:49 -0500
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
Mark Scharff <mscharff@WUSTL.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to establis hed
personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>,
PCCLIST@sun8.loc.gov
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I too am enjoying the conversation here, and have felt able to postpone
setting AUTOCAT to "mail" after returning from ALA; there are more than
enough ideas floating in this forum.
I fall on the side of going with the proposal, but my purpose in posting
is to respond to Jimmie Lundgren's proposal that birth dates be
presented without trailing hyphen or prefatory "b.". Since we seem to
agree that catalog users regard qualifiers as sources of information,
and not merely devices to differentiate entries in an index (even if
some of us don't like it), we should use a convention that invites no
confusion about the nature of the information being presented. It seems
that users clearly understand a date following a name, and followed by a
hyphen, to be a birth date. A prefatory "b." can do the same, though I
don't like it because of the filing problems others have mentioned. A
single unpunctuated date after a name, however, might suggest a
publication date to a catalog user accustomed to seeing citations in
articles such as (Buzzard, 1966) or (J. Crow, 1998). Any change in the
way we present dates must not create ambiguity.
Mark Scharff, Music Cataloger
Gaylord Music Library
Washington University in St. Louis
mscharff@wustl.edu
===============================================================
==========
Date:
Wed, 6 Jul 2005 09:36:48 -0500
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
gary Strawn <mrsmith@NORTHWESTERN.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established
personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>,
PCCLIST@sun8.loc.gov
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050705164346.03aede40@s-hear.email.umn.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
I just had occasion to modify an authority record for a personal name. The
person's forenames in the established heading are represented by initials,
with no subfield $q; the heading has no subfield $d. I found a variant
heading for the person, with forenames spelled out, and birth and death dates.
Because the existing heading does not conflict with (or even come remotely
close to) any other heading, I did not change the heading. I added a 670
field citing the heading and usage that I found, and a 400 field with the
forenames spelled out. The point I guess being that no one has to do any
database maintenance, and additional information is at hand should a
problem arise in the future.
Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc.
Northwestern University, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300
e-mail: mrsmith@northwestern.edu voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit.
===============================================================
==========
Date:
Wed, 6 Jul 2005 16:40:49 +0100
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
"Davey ,Mr Paul" <p.davey@WELLCOME.AC.UK>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to establis hed
personal name headings
Comments: To: PCCLIST@sun8.loc.gov
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi
On the authority control/record vendor/local system debate:
We have an Innopac system and our authority control is outsourced to =
MARS, in the sense that we send our bibliographic records off to them in =
quarterly batches, they look for headings not previously matched in the =
LC and MeSH authority files, supply corresponding authority records if =
they exist, update headings in the bibliographic batch if necessary to =
be in line with the authorities, and return the whole lot to us for =
overlaying (bibliographics) or loading (new authorities).
MARS also keep track of authority records already supplied, and if any =
have been amended at source, send the updated version. We then overlay.
Our Innopac build includes Automatic Authority Control Processing, and, =
as we have set it up, if a 4xx is present in the amended authority, the =
4XX bounces into corresponding bibliographic records and updates =
headings. Our problem is that LC topical and MeSH authorities retain =
older forms in 4XX; LC names (and subject names) don't do that. So I =
have to check through MARS reports and make manual amendments in =
bibliographics.
I would welcome death dates being added either to 667 or to 100, but =
with the proviso that Innopac AACP would make use of the old heading =
being retained in 400 - probably not a very welcome proposal.
Paul Davey
Cataloguing Services Manager
Collection Management
Wellcome Library
215 Euston Road
London NW1 2BE
(+44) 020-7611-8493
p.davey@wellcome.ac.uk
The Wellcome Trust is a registered charity, no.210183.
Its sole Trustee is the Wellcome Trust Limited, a company
registered in England, no. 2711000, whose registered office is 215 =
Euston Road, London NW1 2BE.
===============================================================
==========
Date:
Wed, 6 Jul 2005 10:43:00 -0600
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
Robert Maxwell <robert_maxwell@BYU.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established
personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
Comments: cc: CPSO@loc.gov
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C58249.C6E236A5"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C58249.C6E236A5
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I would like to weigh in in favor of the proposal, mainly in support of
all the points Alva T. Stone has made (below), which I agree with.=20
=20
It is not only library users who have a legitimate complaint about our
rather obstinate refusal to add death dates. My experience teaching
cataloging demonstrates to me at least that budding catalogers, as well,
do not "get" our arguments (all of which are completely reasonable, of
course) until they have been more or less rammed into them. Whenever I
get to the point of explaining how we add dates to headings the question
of open dates ALWAYS comes up and my parrotting of the reasons
(including all the reasons that have come up quite predictably in this
discussion) rarely convinces, at least at the first go round. They are
usually convinced after a fair amount of brainwashing on my part, but I
wonder about the need to do that :-)=20
=20
I think both the budding cataloger reactions and the reactions of
library users could be explained by considering the possibility that our
reasonable arguments are perhaps not so reasonable after all. To
outsiders it does indeed look as though, instead, Alva Stone's five
points are correct: we are lazy, we are unknowledgeable, we don't care
about accuracy, we are unreasonble, we are behind the times
technologically. Since these five points are the very opposite of what
we catalogers actually think we are, it might be a good idea for us to
reconsider and make this nod in the direction of helping our users.
=20
My mother was an intern in the LC Cataloging Dept in the 1950s, and she
relates how there were a couple of older catalogers there whose primary
function seemed to be to read the obituaries of the national newspapers
each day and immediately go out and correct the cards in the catalog by
the addition of death dates. The current proposal does not advocate
this, but it has always surprised me that cataloging operations of long
ago were willing to go to this length to help out the users of the
catalog when it was quite difficult to do so, whereas in this day and
age when it is much easier and quicker (though still not perfectly
simple, as has been amply pointed out in the current discussion) we are
obstinately unwilling to do so. We can declare that this isn't the
purpose of the authority file until the cows come home, but our users DO
use the authority file and headings in the bibliographic file as a
reference source and are surprised when the heading is incomplete. We
catalogers do, too.=20
=20
For these reasons I am completely in favor of this proposal.
=20
I am not in favor of the "b." proposal instead of open dates because of
filing problems. (I would in fact be more in favor of eliminating "b."
altogether and only using open dates when death date is unknown.) I am
also not in favor of rescinding the LCRI instructing us to add dates
when they are known even when not necessary to break a conflict.
=20
Bob Maxwell
=20
Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568=20
=20
________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
[mailto:PCCLIST@loc.gov] On Behalf Of Stone, Alva T
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 1:30 PM
To: PCCLIST@sun8.LOC.GOV
Subject: Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to
established personal name headings
=09
=09
The arguments for continuing the 'status quo' are esoteric.
Library users and even reference librarians do not comprehend our
reasons for omitting death dates that are known. Why should we continue
to promote a practice that makes us look like curmudgeons who focus
mainly on getting the job done with the least effort?
=20
Yes, our primary goal is to provide adequate access to library
materials. The omission of a known author's death date generally does
not impede access to his/her writings, compositions, etc. =20
=20
HOWEVER ...
=20
Let us consider common sense. When we enter an author/creator's
birthdate alongside his/her name, this sets up a reasonable expectation
that we would be giving the complete dates if and when those are known.
That is the common pattern one sees in other reference
sources-biographical dictionaries, encyclopedias, published histories,
etc. The bibliographic catalog is another reference source. We learn a
lot about a person when we see the titles s/he has written or works
created, or the words used in materials written about her/him.
Sometimes we even learn her/his full name, i.e., what that middle
initials stands or stood for. Lots and lots of personal names found in
the catalog are given with the birth dates and the death dates. It is
logical, then, to assume that when a person's name has only the birth
date, then this must mean that s/he is still alive. If we do not add
the death date for someone like Ronald Reagan, Leonard Bernstein, or
Princess Di, what does that say about us?
*
We are lazy=20
*
We are unknowledgable or behind-the-times=20
*
We don't care about accuracy=20
*
We are unreasonable=20
*
We are not using technology appropriately or lobbying
our systems vendors to make global changes more effective=20
=20
Now, you and I might be able to convince ourselves that those
assumptions are incorrect. But this does not negate the appearance that
we are lazy, stupid or slow, uncaring, unreasonable, or technologically
challenged. In my opinion, we need to do what is right to show that we
care about the ongoing quality of our product.
=20
1)
Add death dates to existing name authority records when
these can be verified, without regard to the impact on catalog
maintenance in individual institutions.
2)
Change LC/NACO policy so that birthdates for new Name
Authority records are not added to the established form of name unless
it is needed to distinguish two or more persons with the same name. The
birthdate should be added to the 667 field, however, to be available in
case it is needed later to differentiate between authors.
3)
Continue to request improvements in our Library
Management Systems, to make global changes simpler and more effective.
=20
Okay, that's my 20-cents.
=20
Alva T. Stone, Head of Cataloging
College of Law Library
Florida State University
Tallahassee, FL 32306-1600
=20
===============================================================
========== Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 12:35:00 -0500 Reply-To: Program for Cooperative
Cataloging Sender: Program for Cooperative Cataloging From: Stephen Hearn Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
One other wrinkle in this that should be considered--how will the proposed change
impact unauthorized name headings? Many libraries that aren't in BIBCO or NACO
nevertheless strive to adhere to the standards that operate in those programs. Currently,
the NACO Personal Name FAQ (
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/naco/personnamefaq.html ) includes an advisory that when
a heading form is in use on bib records in OCLC or RLIN, the used form should be
respected as new headings are established. In practice, this is an acknowledged exception
to the rule that fuller forms or dates should be added when known. Consistency with
existing headings and minimizing BFM are valued over the inclusion of additional
information. Presumably, this advisory would be contradicted by the proposed policy of
adding dates at will. If the new policy is that one should add dates whenever they're
known, regardless of existing bib headings, how will this impact the personal name
headings in a large shared environment like OCLC? I would guess that in addition to
requiring lots more BFM for established headings, variant forms of unauthorized names
will occur more frequently as well. Stephen
===============================================================
========== Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 10:39:22 -0700 Reply-To: Program for Cooperative
Cataloging Sender: Program for Cooperative Cataloging From: Daniel CannCasciato
Subject: Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established personal name
headings Comments: To: PCCLIST@loc.gov MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type:
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline
I think a core issue in the discussion is that a hdg of: Diana, Princess of Wales, 1961does contain a factual error. It isn't a cosmetic error. It certainly isn't an error from the
sense of establishing a unique heading for control purposes, but the heading truly is
incorrect. She died back in 1997. There's almost no way the heading as it currently stands
doesn't draw attention to itself because of this error. If the heading were Diana, Prince of
Wales, 1961- it would be no less unique - - but doubly incorrect. We [generally] seek to
correct headings when they are wrong. The proposed policy allows that. While not
ignoring the other considerations which have been well stated and clear, to me the need to
have the heading correct is what wins the argument in the end. Daniel ------------- Daniel
CannCasciato Head of Cataloging Central Washington University Library 400 E.
University Way Ellensburg, WA 98926-7548 dcc@cwu.edu
===============================================================
========== Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 12:55:06 -0500 Reply-To: Program for Cooperative
Cataloging Sender: Program for Cooperative Cataloging From: "A. Ralph Papakhian"
Subject: Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established personal name
headings Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging In-Reply-To: MIMEhi, there is a cost/benefit analysis that should be considered. how much time/cost is
expended (nationally and internationally) by library clientele, librarians and library staff
trying to figure out why death dates are not included in headings and explaining this
phenomenon of open dates to both the public and the staff, versus the time/cost involved
in adding the death dates when discovered and consequently maintaining all of those
thousands of catalogs. i'm not sure how to make that analysis, but surely there is an awful
lot of time spent every day explaining why death dates aren't added to headings (maybe
not by catalogers, but by somebody). this is what was behind the MLA Authorities
Subcommittee proposal to allow for the use of 680 fields to indicate the fact that someone
has died without changing the heading. something like: 100 Hope, Bob, 1903- 680
American comdedian; died July 27, 2003. would library clientele ever see the information
in the 680? --ralph p. A. Ralph Papakhian, Indiana University Music Library
Bloomington, IN 47405 812/855-2970 papakhi@indiana.edu co-owner: MLAL@listserv.indiana.edu
===============================================================
========== Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 11:29:23 -0700 Reply-To: Program for Cooperative
Cataloging Sender: Program for Cooperative Cataloging From: "D. Brooking" Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
I am now thinking: the proposal is to allow the *optional* addition of dates. So... If we
keep the LCRI that says to include dates if they are readily available when the name is set
up, and we will continue to add dates to resolve conflicts as they arise, then it seems that
this optional provision would be most often used to add death dates. And that is what
people seem to be talking about in this thread. I think the reality will turn out to be that
we will continue to have large numbers of open birth dates in our catalogs, and that only
the most famous and noticeable people will get closed out anyway. The frustration is that
the current policy absolutely *prevents* you from doing so. With the proposal at least we
would be allowed to fix the most glaring cases. Though many may now imagine that they
want to do much more than that. Many of the changes that came about with AACR2, as I
understand it, were to relieve catalogers from the burden of doing lots of in-depth
detective work. Like the people whose full-time job was to check obituaries as Robert
Maxwell described. The reality of cataloging is that we are under some pretty heavy
pressures to produce, this reality has brought about policies such as core records and now
access-level records, not to mention the old minimal record debate. So even with the
Web, I can't imagine what kind of workflow we would have to set up to do regular
sweeps of authors in our catalog to check to see if they have died yet! In short, I don't
think catalogers will have so much time on their hands that they will end up producing
quite the amount of maintenance work one might imagine as a result of this proposal.
Though I could be wrong. ************ Diana Brooking (206) 543-8405 Cataloging
Librarian (206) 685-8782 fax Suzzallo Library dbrookin@u.washington.edu University
of Washington Box 352900 Seattle WA 98195-2900
===============================================================
========== Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 14:31:13 -0700 Reply-To: Program for Cooperative
Cataloging Sender: Program for Cooperative Cataloging From: Adam Schiff Subject: Re:
Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established personal name headings Comments:
To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging Comments: cc: PCCLIST@sun8.loc.gov InReply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050706121429.03fa0d30@s-hear.email.umn.edu>
If the new policy is that one should add dates > whenever they're known, regardless of
existing bib headings, how will this > impact the personal name headings in a large
shared environment like OCLC? > I would guess that in addition to requiring lots more
BFM for established > headings, variant forms of unauthorized names will occur more
frequently as > well. > > Stephen Hearn At the University of Washington, we have a
policy that catalogers report to OCLC (using the error report feature in Connexion) any
records that they find that have a heading that isn't in synch with an authority record that
they have created or modified. This is above and beyond the NACO requirement that we
report such things to LC. We feel that this is the best way to help OCLC stay in synch
with the LC/NACO authority file and that the extra time taken to report this will benefit
us later when we need to use one of those records for some newly acquired item.
Unfortunately, there is no good mechanism for reporting the changed heading to all of the
libraries who have already used a particular bibliographic record. This is one reason that I
don't give much weight to arguments that library catalogs won't all be in synch -- they
already are not, have never been, and what is most important I believe is that libraries
strive within their own catalog to be consistent in the application of headings. It's less
important that we all use the exact same form than it is that within our individual systems
we are consistent. While I appreciate the arguments about filing problems with dates that
include "b." or "d." or "fl." in front of them, this again is a result of poor system designs.
We should be demanding that programmers of library automation systems come up with
a solution - how hard is it really to design a system that can ignore the abbreviation in
front of the date for the purposes of sorting? We should determine what kind of heading
would work best for our users and for the ease of catalogers and then tell our library
vendors what we need from them to improve sorts, displays, etc. I hate to see progress
halted because of what some or most systems can do today. I feel strongly that while the
development of our cataloging code can be informed by current technological
abilities/limitations, that it nevertheless should be somewhat independent them and must
be based on a principled approach not linked to any given automated system's
capabilities. --Adam Schiff ************************************** * Adam L.
Schiff * * Principal Cataloger * * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 *
* Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * *
aschiff@u.washington.edu * **************************************
===============================================================
========== Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 16:51:41 -0500 Reply-To: Program for Cooperative
Cataloging Sender: Program for Cooperative Cataloging From: gary Strawn Subject: Re:
Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established personal name headings Comments:
To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging , PCCLIST@sun8.loc.gov
At 04:31 PM 7/6/2005, Adam Schiff wrote: We should be demanding that programmers
of library >automation systems come up with a solution - how hard is it really to >design
a system that can ignore the abbreviation in front of the date for >the purposes of sorting?
I'm sure that this valid point will be included in its work by the just-activated PCC task
force on normalization (speaking as the chair ...); but as is the case with the current
"rules" for normalization, there's no guarantee that any library system vendor will follow
PCC recommendations. P.S.: If anyone wants to open a thread on normalization at this
time (not me!), please change the subject line. Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc.
Northwestern University, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300 e-mail:
mrsmith@northwestern.edu voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306 Forsan et haec olim
meminisse iuvabit.
===============================================================
========== Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 09:06:49 +0100 Reply-To: Program for Cooperative
Cataloging Sender: Program for Cooperative Cataloging From: "Moore, Richard"
Subject: Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established personal name
headings Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging , PCCLIST@sun8.loc.gov
I've been following this debate with interest. I think there is a question of what would be
desirable, and an issue of what is now achievable.=20 In principle, I think it is desirable
to close open birth dates in headings, for people who have died. For all the reasons of
perceived accuracy and care, that have been given. I don't think it desirable to add dates
at will to headings that do not have them at all, as these headings are not, in any sense,
wrong. Moreover, dates are not the only means that we use to make headings unique:
adding dates to a heading already qualified by expanded names, academic qualifications,
etc., has the effect of making headings more cumbersome, and creating unnecessary
work. So I am against that. =20 In terms of what is achievable, several contributors have
commented that changing even more authorised forms of name would damage their
catalogues. It's not a justification for the proposal, to say that some headings are changed
in any case, as this just increases the scale of the problem. Ultimately, headings are about
access, and we should not impair this in the interests of cosmetics. In my view, that part
of the proposal relating to closing birth dates should be implemented, but only when there
is a consensus that the benefits will outweigh the disadvantages. It's apparent from this
debate that this consenses does not yet exist.=20 Hopefully, our systems will have
improved within a relatively short space of time, so that this balance will change. The
British Library hopes to be able to accommodate changes to headings in a more
satisfactory way before long. We're not in a positon to do so yet, and this clearly applies
to other institutions as well.=20 I don't think we should lose sight of the primary function
of our name headings, especially now that authority control is taking on greater
importance. A contributor commented that a heading such as "Diana, Princess of Wales,
1961-" draws attention to itself. If it draws attention to itself, one could argue that it is
doing its job ;-)=20 Regards Richard _________________________ Richard Moore=20
Authority Control Team Manager=20 The British Library =20 Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
=20 E-mail: richard.moore@bl.uk =20
===============================================================
========== Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 07:53:09 -0500 Reply-To: Program for Cooperative
Cataloging Sender: Program for Cooperative Cataloging From: Mike Tribby Subject: Re:
Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established person al name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging , PCCLIST@sun8.loc.gov MIMEVersion: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain >
From Adam Schiff: "We should be demanding that programmers of library automation
systems come up with a solution - how hard is it really to design a system that can ignore
the abbreviation in front of the date for the purposes of sorting?" Then we should be
planning on ponying up relatively significant money to pay the programmers of library
automation systems to come up with a solution. If your library can afford to do this--as
well as making the OPAC changes FRBR will require--I'm happy for you. Not all
libraries enjoy this lofty status. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The
Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tribby@quality-books.com
===============================================================
========== Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 08:41:30 -0400 Reply-To: Program for Cooperative
Cataloging Sender: Program for Cooperative Cataloging From: Jonathan David
Makepeace Subject: Fw: Death dates & copyright
I am forwarding the AUTOCAT message below with its author's permission, because I feel he
makes interesting points. However, I wonder whether he would also suggest adding more
complete forms of the name (whenever found) to established headings that either omit or
abbreviate elements of the author's name, since they would also aid in distinguishing between
authors.
==
Date:
Tue, 5 Jul 2005 16:07:00 -0500
From:
"Schupbach, William" <w.schupbach@wellcome.ac.uk>
Subject: Death dates & copyright
Re: Proposal to allow addition of dates to exisitng personal name headings
Judith Hopkins wrote:
> I do not see that adding a death date to an authority record will
> improve the finding of a specific work.
If you are looking for works by or about a William Gray, who you know was
still alive in the 1920s, you are assisted to find those works if the
catalogers have included dates of death for people with that name who died
before 1920.
Once you have found the works, if the author's date of death is included,
you will know whether you can photocopy or reprint a substantial amount of
the book, as copyright (in Europe at any rate) lasts for seventy years
after the author's death, other things being equal.
In that situation, you might well feel gratitude to the librarians who had
enabled you to carry out your work so smoothly, instead of serving up a
huge list of names without dates even when the dates were in the
publications being cataloged.
Yes, there would be more authority work to do initially, as Names
Authority Files catch up with the effects of a long period of sluggishness
in the death-date department. There would have been less of a backlog if
that period had been shorter, but there you are. After that, things
should settle down, and catalogs without authority control will (without
much manual tinkering) continue their ride on the freeway to Chaos.
William Schupbach
Wellcome Library, 210 Euston Road, London NW1 2BE, England
E-mail: w.schupbach@wellcome.ac.uk
Catalogue: http://catalogue.wellcome.ac.uk/search/X
[British registered charity no. 210183]
--=_alternative 0045B80E85257037_=-===============================================================
========== Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 08:19:47 -0500 Reply-To: Program for Cooperative
Cataloging Sender: Program for Cooperative Cataloging From: Mike Tribby Subject: Re:
Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established person al name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type:
text/plain
Mention has been made of at least inputting death dates on
NARs for significant persons, Princess Diana being a
named example. While I think adding death dates is an
important pursuit and surely a strategy that will please-even if it doesn't further enable--catalog users, it seems to
me that we need to either do it for all or none at all. If
Princess Di is significant, then so is the former Bianca
Jagger who also became famous more for her associations
and liasons than for any other reason. I mean no disrespect
to the late Princess, but I wish to point out that significance
is hardly an attribute that can easily be assessed with
unanimity.
=====================================================
====================
Date:
Fri, 8 Jul 2005 08:30:09 -0500
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
<PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging
<PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
"Lasater, Mary C" <mary.c.lasater@VANDERBILT.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established
personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
<PCCLIST@loc.gov>,
PCCLIST@sun8.loc.gov
Comments: cc: CPSO <CPSO@loc.gov>
All,
I agree with Robert, Alva and Arlene. I am extremely tired of
apologizing for not adding death dates. For the last 15 years, 10
as a NACO contributor, I've apologized based on "LC can't do BFM"
to those small libraries and reference librarians that others on
the list are attempting to 'protect'. Those people are adding the
death dates and the vendor I use and 'support', Marcive, respects
that position, by not deleting the dates in headings on
bibliographic records they process.
Another benefit that I see to making the change now is that my work
as an authorities librarian would have more respect because I am
able to respond to requests to add a death date. Perhaps authority
work will be seen as valuable again, instead of just expensive.
I'm sorry some systems do not yet make maintenance easy, but I do
not think waiting to make the change will help. Making the change
now will pressure those systems to make the maintenance easier.
There are ways to use vendors that will allow those of you with
clunky systems to implement the change.
For me and my current setup, I will have little additional work
because a date is added to an existing authority record. What does
take time for me are 'non-unique' authority records. I would like
to see us move toward the music position where appropriate terms
are added to names to make them undifferentiated when created. I
appreciate all the work that the British Library does to make names
on their records 'unique'. However, each month I spend hours
tracking those down, trying to determine what the name is 'now'. If
we established these with a phrase 'author of...' or any of the
other mechanisms we use for older names, a change to that heading
later when a date or more information is available, would be much
more efficient for me to handle.
While I support adding dates to names when established, I do not
support the use of the b. and d. dates. These are confusing in
displays. I also think that we should 'rethink' the part of the RI
that makes us consider AACR2 headings in bibliographic records. I
spend more time answering trainees questions about this than almost
anything of substance. If we have a date, let us add it. There will
not be more BFM, that can't easily be handled.
My 2 cents based on many years,
Mary Charles Lasater
=====================================================
====================
Date:
Fri, 8 Jul 2005 08:33:44 -0500
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
<PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging
<PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
Mike Tribby <mike.tribby@QUALITY-BOOKS.COM>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established
person
al name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
<PCCLIST@loc.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
But my point remains that if we accept this proposed change it
will be largely because of complaints regarding how patrons expect to see
headings appear. I agree that death dates, when known, should certainly be
added to headings, but I suspect other cosmetic changes that many
catalogers
do indeed see as "apples and oranges" situations in comparison to adding
death dates will also be suggested in the future.
Perhaps it would be profitable to also address whether and how
notification
of these changes in NARs might be announced.
Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses
mailto:mike.tribby@quality-books.com
==========================================================
===============
Date:
Fri, 8 Jul 2005 16:36:10 -0400
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
<PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging
<PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
Amy H Turner <amy.turner@DUKE.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established person
al name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<P>&nbsp;As authority control coordinator at Duke University for 5 years, I=
believe I have seen a representative sample of patron requests that headin=
gs be changed. &nbsp;The catalog includes a mechanism for making suggestion=
s, and the person who screens these suggestions forwards those having to do=
with authority control to me. &nbsp;I have also been forwarded requests fr=
om Reference, the head of Cataloging, etc. &nbsp;Let me assure you that I h=
ave not been overwhelmed! &nbsp; I haven't kept statistics, but I can remem=
ber:</P><P>1 request that death dates be added to the heading of the patron=
's grandfather.</P><P>1 request from an author that her date be deleted.</P=
><P>1 request from an author that his name be changed to the form he consis=
tently used in later works (Edward vs. Ed.)</P><P>1 request from an author =
that a typo in his middle name be corrected.</P><P>1 observation about a sp=
lit file.</P><P>Re the uniqueness of that last observation, my brother, who=
is a college professor, and to whom I talk about work fairly often, once a=
sked me if there is a rule in catalogs to use one form of name per author.<=
/P><P>I agree 100% with Mary Charles Lasater that to demonstrate the value =
of authority control, we need to be responsive to requests to make correcti=
ons. &nbsp;This doesn't mean switching headings back and forth at the whim =
of the few patrons who speak up, but we should be able to make headings aut=
horitative without retreating behind the excuse &quot;oh, so sorry, it is t=
oo much work.
Date:
Thu, 14 Jul 2005 08:56:50 -0400
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
<PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging
<PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
Sherman Clarke <sherman.clarke@NYU.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow addition of dates to personal name headings
Comments: To: pcclist@sun8.loc.gov, cpso@loc.gov,
The discussion of the CPSO proposal to allow addition of dates to =
personal name headings has been intriguing and thought-provoking=2C and =
occasionally contentious=2E When I first heard from Ana Crist=C3=A1n that=
CPSO =
was thinking about this proposal=2C I was quite distressed because I =
think that headings should serve to distinguish entities=2C not =
necessarily to tell the biographical tale=2E I still think that but am =
strongly convinced by the argument that it is foolish to put yourself =
in the position of having to justify =22Warhol=2C Andy=2C 1928-=22 or =22=
Diana=2C =
Princess of Wales=2C 1961-=22 in your catalog=2E
Revising dates in a heading when they are incorrect (e=2Eg=2E Katharine =
Hepburn) or incomplete (e=2Eg=2E Warhol=2C Dali=2C Princess Di) seems a =
commendable and viable path to follow=2E The proposal however calls =
for =22allow=5Bing=5D the optional addition of dates (birth=2C death or b=
oth) =
to existing personal name headings at will=2E=22 There are many authority=
=
records where the heading is distinctive but no dates are included =
(e=2Eg=2E Motherwell=2C Robert=3B Frist=2C William H=2E)=2E Certainly
the=
proposed =
change does not require that the dates be added if now known=2C and =
current practice would call for adding the date(s) if that is how to =
break a conflict (e=2Eg=2E Gary Snyder)=2E
I think the new policy should be to allow the revision of dates when =
they are incorrect or incomplete=2C but not to add the dates just because=
=
they are now known but weren=27t known to the cataloger who created the =
authority record=2E And I would also argue for continuing the policy of =
following an LC heading that appears on a bibliographic record but does =
not yet have an authority record=2E
Sherman Clarke
NYU Libraries and Art NACO
sherman=2Eclarke=40nyu=2Eedu
==========================================================
===============
Date:
Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:00:31 -0500
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
<PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging
<PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
Stephen Hearn <s-hear@UMN.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow addition of dates to personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
In-Reply-To: <103390d1036209.1036209103390d@nyu.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
One thing that has bothered me about this discussion has been the focus on
exceptionally well known names. I'm not sure Princess Diana and Andy Warhol
should be the models here. So, with a keyword search on "1901" and "john" I
found the following likely "undead" persons born in 1901 (setting aside
those headings with "b. 1901"):
Zimmerman, John Edward, 1901Wolfe, John, 1901Windle, John T. 1901Wilson, John J. (John Johnston), 1901Williams, Harley, 1901Wickham, J. J. (Joseph John), 1901White, John Arch, 1901Weismann, John J. (John Jacob), 1901Walsh, William J. (William John), 1901Walsh, J. Raymond (John Raymond), 1901Visser, John Arthur, 1901Travell, Janet G., 1901Tibble, John William, 1901Thompson, John R., 1901Sullivan, John W. W. (John Wadsworth William), 1901And so on. While I agree with the value of adding death dates to headings
like Warhol and Sartre, I can't see adding death dates to names like the
above as doing us or anyone else much good. So in changing the dates
policy, I'd ask catalogers to use their judgment to determine whether a
name is well known enough to be worth this kind of exceptional treatment.
If it's not, just add a newly discovered death date in a 670 as we've been
doing.
Stephen
****************************************************
Stephen Hearn
Authority Control Coord./Database Mgmt. Section Head
Technical Services Dept.
University of Minnesota
160 Wilson Library
Voice: 612-625-2328
309 19th Avenue South
Fax: 612-625-3428
Minneapolis, MN 55455
E-mail: s-hear@tc.umn.edu
=========================================================
Date:
Thu, 14 Jul 2005 08:30:27 -0600
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
<PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging
<PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
John Wright <John_Wright@BYU.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow addition of dates to personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C58880.9516FF2E"
Since it appears that the conversation is beginning to come full circle,
I want to reassert my proposal that the LCRI be modified. The option of
always adding a date if it is readily available when creating a heading
is the culprit which, as far as I can tell, caused the initial problem.
When dates are not needed to make a heading unique, they should not be
added. If the 1961- had been included in the 670, but left off the
heading for Diana, Princess of Wales and if the 1928- had been recorded
in the 670, but left off the Warhol, Andy heading, we wouldn't have to
feel embarrassed about the way the catalog looks, nor would we have to
explain why the dates are left open. In both cases, the date was NOT
needed to make the headings unique.
Let's please get to the root of the problem and quit hacking at the
leaves!
Regards,
John B. Wright
=20
==========================================================
Date:
Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:02:27 -0500
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
<PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging
<PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
"Horne, Carl Stanley" <horne@INDIANA.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow addition of dates to personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
To go to this extreme, in order to avoid the occasional
inconvenience/embarrassment of the Andy Warhol scenario, makes no sense
to me.
(1) It makes far too large a concession to the current limitations of
our cataloging systems,as has already been argued.
(2) It guarantees that in a steady stream (or trickle?) of instances we
would have to add the dates later, to attain uniqueness, as has already
been pointed out.
(3) It also would render our headings less useful, such as in the
following scenario: I search an author's name in the authority file. I
get an index screen, including the heading Schmoe, Joe, 1948- My book,
written by some Joe Schmoe or other, was published in 1953. I do not
have to examine that authority record to eliminate the 1948- Joe Schmoe
as the author of my book, but I would have to examine it under the
policy urged below. And would all catalogers, most of them unfamiliar
with our policy debate, know that a birth date is fairly likely to be
buried in a 670 field? Would they all bother to check for one, even if
they knew of that likelihood?
=20
(Please accept my apologies, if there are any Joseph Schmoes out there
in NACO-land.)
=20
Carl Horne
=20
Slavic and Central Eurasian Cataloger
& NACO / SACO Liaison
Indiana University Library
Bloomington, IN 47405 =20
==========================================================
Date:
Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:37:14 -0500
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
<PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging
<PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
Mike Tribby <mike.tribby@QUALITY-BOOKS.COM>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow addition of dates to personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
I agree with John Wright that the best solution would be to simply do away
with or change the LCRI that instructs to add a birthdate if that date is
known at the time a name heading is created. Putting the date in a 670
provides a way of storing information that may be needed later. However,
given the way cataloging rules and LCRIs go, I doubt that this strategy will
be endorsed.
If the proposal to allow the addition of dates simply to close off the
headings for the deceased is approved, this may well lead to wholesale
heading changes that do no more than effect cosmetic changes, but require a
great deal of updating of headings for libraries. I think the proposal to
restrict this profligate updating to headings for significant persons is
bound to fail since, given years of reading cataloging discussion lists, I
doubt we can agree on just who these significant persons might be--or have
been.
If others feel the need to close off Princess Di and Andy Warhol's headings
with death dates, then certainly we need to close off Muddy Waters' heading
(Muddy Waters,$d1915-), Howlin' Wolf's (Howlin' Wolf,$d1910-), Mickey
Mantle's (Mantle, Mickey,$1931-), Ted Williams' (Williams, Ted,$d1918-) and
dozens of others. Of these headings only Williams' needs or needed the
birthdate to break a conflict, and many libraries have recordings by or
books about these musicians and baseball players.
Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses
mailto:mike.tribby@quality-books.com
===============================================================
Date:
Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:56:06 -0600
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
Beall Jeffrey <Jeffrey.Beall@CUDENVER.EDU>
Subject:
Proposal to allow addition of dates to personal name headings
Comments: To: PCCLIST@loc.gov
I don't care which we go on this decision, but if we do start adding
death dates to existing headings, I suggest that CPSO maintain and
publish a list of these changed headings, say, on a weekly basis, like
the weekly subject heading lists. That way we could find out what
headings were changed and make these changes in our local catalogs.
Because we do manual authority control at my institution, this
information would be crucial to us.=20
=20
I wish that such a list already existed for changes in name headings
actually, especially for personal name headings that were formerly on
undifferentiated personal name authority records.=20
=20
Jeffrey Beall
Auraria Library
University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center
Denver, Colo.
jeffrey.beall@cudenver.edu
===============================================================
Date:
Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:59:00 +0100
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
"Moore, Richard" <Richard.Moore@BL.UK>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow addition of dates to personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>,
PCCLIST@sun8.loc.gov
I think it's worth remembering that dates are not the only way in which
we make headings unique. Headings are also qualified, following AACR2
22.18-22.19, by initial expansions, unused parts of names, brief terms,
terms of address, titles, initials of degrees, initials denoting
membership of professional bodies, etc. If cataloguers were allowed
subsequently to add unnecessary dates to headings that did not have
them, would they remove the above, or leave exisiting qualifiers in
place, even though they were now technically unnecessary, because dates
had been added?=20
=20
Adding unnecessary dates at will seems to serve neither function of name
headings very well - it adds nothing to uniqueness, and is often not the
most useful information to present to a user, who may be much more
likely to know that an author is a member of a learned society, or a
doctor of medicine, than when they were born. We get into all kinds of
issues when we start to regard headings as biographical notes about
authors. This is not the purpose of the heading; it's the function,
rather of the authority record.=20
=20
If we were to change the principles on which headings are constructed,
and started to regard them as reference works, we would need yet more
rules, to determine what to add, and what to take off. Why single out
dates, when there may be more informative things we can add? Why not add
descriptive phrases, or places of residence, or the titles of their
works? That's the sort of thing we might do, if we regarded headings as
reference works, rather than unique identifiers. Currently we add a
sufficiently economical qualifer, of one kind or another, to make the
heading unique.=20
=20
Finally there is the question of database management. Incorrect headings
should not be left unaltered, simply because they might cause dificult
BFM issues. But BFM problems genuinely arise when headings are changed,
and the principle of stability of headings seeks to minimise them. Under
the original proposal, a cataloguer could add a birth date to a
perfectly unique heading, that was either unqualified, or qualified in
another way. When the author died, another cataloguer could come along
and add a death date. That's *two* unnecessary changes, to a heading
that was both correct, and doing its job perfectly well.
=20
I agree in principle with the closing of birth dates with death dates,
to "correct" headings that appear to be wrong. That seems to me to be
the problem that recurs, and that we are trying to address. To change
other, perfectly good headings at will seems to me to be the wrong
approach, and runs counter to what authority control is trying to
acheive.
=20
_________________________
Richard Moore=20
Authority Control Team Manager=20
The British Library
=20
Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
=20
E-mail: richard.moore@bl.uk <mailto:richard.moore@bl.uk>
===============================================================
Date:
Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:07:54 -0500
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
gary Strawn <mrsmith@NORTHWESTERN.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow addition of dates to personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>,
PCCLIST@sun8.loc.gov
At 09:00 AM 7/14/2005, Stephen Hearn wrote:
>And so on. While I agree with the value of adding death dates to headings
>like Warhol and Sartre, I can't see adding death dates to names like the
>above as doing us or anyone else much good.
I must disagree with my esteemed colleague on this small point. The
question of whether adding death dates will do us or anyone else any good
has left the barn. If we allow the modification of headings simply to add
death dates, then there's no way to restrict this to "useful" cases. Any
library can determine that John Withywindle is an important person whom
"everyone" at their institution knows to be dead, and proceed to change the
heading.
I hope however that the eventual policy encompasses the possibility that an
institution could add a 670 to an authority record giving a person's death
date, without also *requiring* that the institution change the heading then
or at any other time. So institutions with a good community consciousness
can keep the authority record up to date and not require all other
institutions to perform database maintenance that doesn't buy improved access.
Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc.
Northwestern University, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300
e-mail: mrsmith@northwestern.edu voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit.
===============================================================
Date:
Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:08:46 -0500
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
"Horne, Carl Stanley" <horne@INDIANA.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow addition of dates to personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C5888E.5084B7DE"
To go to this extreme, in order to avoid the occasional
inconvenience/embarrassment of the Andy Warhol scenario, makes no sense
to me.
(1) It makes far too large a concession to the current limitations of
our cataloging systems,as has already been argued.
(2) It guarantees that in a steady stream (or trickle?) of instances we
would have to add the dates later, to attain uniqueness, as has already
been pointed out.
(3) It also would render our headings less useful, such as in the
following scenario: I search an author's name in the authority file. I
get an index screen, including the heading Schmoe, Joe, 1948- My book,
written by some Joe Schmoe or other, was published in 1953. I do not
have to examine that authority record to eliminate the 1948- Joe Schmoe
as the author of my book, but I would have to examine it under the
policy urged below. And would all catalogers, most of them unfamiliar
with our policy debate, know that a birth date is fairly likely to be
buried in a 670 field? Would they all bother to check for one, even if
they knew of that likelihood?
=20
(Please accept my apologies, if there are any Joseph Schmoes out there
in NACO-land.)
=20
Carl Horne
=20
Slavic and Central Eurasian Cataloger
& NACO / SACO Liaison
Indiana University Library
Bloomington, IN 47405 =20
============================================================
Date:
Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:12:54 -0400
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
"Deborah J. Leslie" <DJLeslie@FOLGER.EDU>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established
personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I am strongly in favor of LC's proposal, for the various reasons already
mentioned, and am likewise not convinced that we should give less
complete and accurate data that we have in hand. There was a huge
disruption in headings when AACR2 was adopted, but libraries achieved
it, to the benefit of the catalog. This is a much smaller proposed
disruption, but again to the benefit of the catalog.=20
I would like to point out one argument that I have not seen emphasized;
apologies if it has been made and I missed it. To the contention that an
open date is enough to make to an entity unique, I reply that an open
date has a particular meaning, and it is NOT that we know the birth
date. It means that a person with an open date is a *living person.*
(AACR2 22.17A). To deliberately keep an open date on a heading when a
person is known to be dead is to provide catalog users (including
ourselves!) with misleading and incorrect data.=20
About the filing problem with "b.", "d.", and "fl.": what is the status
of the non-filing start and stop code that was discussed some years ago
in reference to bibliographic records? Could it be applied to authority
records to exclude letters in a date subfield?=20
________________________________
Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
Head of Cataloging
Folger Shakespeare Library
201 East Capitol St., SE
Washington, DC 20003
202.675-0369
djleslie@folger.edu
=20
===============================================================
=============================================================
Date:
Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:23:14 -0400
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sender:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
From:
"Starr, Daniel" <Daniel.Starr@METMUSEUM.ORG>
Subject:
Re: Proposal to allow addition of dates to personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
It seems to me that the comments on this proposal reflect two very =
different viewpoints. The first is concerned with what makes sense in =
our environment of shared cataloging and shared headings. The =
statements reflecting this viewpoint focus on what are the requirements =
for creating unique headings, identifying individuals and associating =
them with those headings, what library systems can and cannot do, =
whether the proposal creates too much work, which headings might or =
should be changed and how, etc. The second viewpoint is concerned with =
the needs and expectations of the users of our catalogs. The statements =
reflecting this viewpoint focus on whether the information we are =
providing in headings is sufficient, accurate and complete.
At the recent ALA annual conference I must have heard a dozen times that =
our public is turning to Google for information about library material =
and that the only thing that we librarians have to offer is that we are =
the ones who provide vetted authoritative information. It embarrasses =
me that we continue knowingly to provide inaccurate and incomplete =
information in our catalogs. I think we should do anything possible to =
remedy this. The questions of whether to update headings with birth =
dates, but not those without any dates, or whether to update headings =
only for famous people, are red herrings. The principle behind all of =
our cataloging should be to provide accurate and complete information. =
Once that principle is accepted I'm sure we can figure out how to =
accomplish it; it isn't as if every single heading is going to be =
changed immediately. This sounds much like the discussion surrounding =
the implementation of AACR2. We made the collective decision to =
implement it after some delay, and it resulted in an improvement to our =
catalogs. No one suggests that AACR2 was perfect, and I expect most of =
us still have records with pre-AACR2 headings in our catalogs, but that =
is not an argument that we should never have made the change. I suggest =
we accept the proposal, begin to work out the problems, and in five =
years we will think it a quaint reminder of older times when we stumble =
upon a heading for some obscure person that still has an open date, =
1901#####################################=20
Daniel Starr=20
Manager of Bibliographic Operations=20
Thomas J. Watson Library=20
The Metropolitan Museum of Art=20
1000 Fifth Avenue=20
New York, NY 10028-0198=20
212-650-2582=20
212-570-3847 (fax)=20
daniel.starr@metmuseum.org=20
==========================
From: Stephen Hearn <s-hear@UMN.EDU>
Subject: Re: Proposal to allow addition of dates to personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
To: PCCLIST@sun8.LOC.GOV
I mostly agree with Gary's point. I'd be happy to change any heading that
comes to the attention of any library at a user's prompting. I'd be happy
for LC to put a "Bring out your dead" button on its online catalog welcome
page where people could report on the expired.
But I'd regret seeing the adding of death dates (which is not the same
thing as responding to user requests) become valued more highly than
heading stability as a general principle within the cataloging community.
We have lots of authorities now which contain death dates in a 670 which
aren't in the open dated heading. If LC and NACO come to regard all of
those open dated headings as "erroneous" headings which it is "right" to
correct, we will be creating work for ourselves which no one is asking us
to do. If that becomes part of cataloger culture, then the restraint Gary
argues for on the part of "institutions with a good community
consciousness" will be undone by the the "institutions that care about
being accurate and correct." And in the midst of such an ideological split
with all the wasted double effort it will involve, we will be causing more
split files in the affected catalogs. Has anyone in this discussion yet
taken the position that split files won't result, or that split files are
less of an access problem than open dated headings for the departed?
When LC eventually updates this policy regardless of which way the decision
goes, I hope they will be clear about which side of this ideological fence
we should be working on.
Stephen
=================================================
From: Robert Maxwell <robert_maxwell@BYU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Proposal to allow addition of dates to personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
To: PCCLIST@sun8.LOC.GOV
Precedence: list
:
If this policy is implemented (and I've already indicated that I'm in favor of it) I would hate to see it
exclude the possibility of adding dates to headings that do not already have them. I ran into a
situation just the other day where I wasted a lot of time because of the non-addition of dates to a
"unique" heading. I was dealing with a fairly common name, Harris, Jonathan. When I went to the
authority file there were 14 Harris, Jonathans in various permutations, including one without
dates, middle initials, etc. I knew from the information about the author in the book that he was
probably born about mid-century. Given the number of identical or similar names (including some
with made-up qualifiers) I assumed that the plain form was for an undifferentiated name. So
ignoring that one for the moment I proceeded to go through the rest. Not finding him in the other
13, I finally looked at what I had supposed would be an undifferentiated name and by golly, it was
my man. And furthermore, in the 670, there was his birthdate. If the heading had been so
created--or REVISED to add the birthdate--I would have saved a fair amount of time; I would
have probably gone straight to the correct heading.
Now I know that the amount of time I would have saved probably does not equal the amount of
time libraries would need to take to modify changed headings in their catalog--though I'm
probably not the only cataloger that would be saving time in such cases. But I did want to make
the point that these dates are not just cosmetic. They aid everyone, catalogers and other library
users alike, in efficiently finding the heading they want.
Bob
Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568
Date:
Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:08:06 -0400
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
Sender: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
From: Priscilla Williams <priwill@UFLIB.UFL.EDU>
Subject: Re: Proposal to allow addition of dates to personal nam e headings
Comments: To: "PCCLIST@loc.gov" <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
To: PCCLIST@sun8.LOC.GOV
I too, support LC's proposal to allow the addition of dates to established personal name
headings for reasons stated by Bob and many others in this discussion. Much of the
discussion is centered around maintenance and rightly so, but let us not forget the users.
I won't put away my recorded message to the patron, just yet, explaining why we don't
add death dates, etc. but I'm certainly looking to the day when I'll gladly do so. Once I
explain to the patron why we don't add death dates, etc. they understand but it's all
because I approach the issue from the maintenance point of view. While it's not a
problem to explain this repeatedly, the question that I ask is why should there be a need
for me to continue to explain?
Priscilla
Priscilla R. Williams
Authorities & Metadata Quality Unit Head
University of Florida
George A. Smathers Libraries
Date:
Fri, 15 Jul 2005 12:14:23 +0800
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
Sender: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
From: Saralee <saralee@SILAS.ORG.SG>
Subject: Re: Proposal to allow addition of dates to personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
To: PCCLIST@sun8.LOC.GOV
Precedence: list
X-YaleITSMailFilter: Version 1.2b (attachment(s) not renamed)
X-Yale-Not-Spam: For more info see: http://www.yale.edu/email/spam/content.html
X-Yale-Spam-Score: (0)
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 130.132.50.54
Status:
With regard to John Wright's comments below, I would just like to reiterate that not
adding the birthdate when known (preventing a future conflict and the unravelling that
can happen when bibliographic records include heading which are really inappropriate,
based on what is in the 670's) could lead to a different workflow. In some libraries, for
example, it could be decided not to establish names until a conflict does exist, thereby
making the unravelling exercise a one-time affair!
Perhaps, since the feeling about this RI appears to be strong, the RI could be changed to
allow some discretionary behaviour on the part of the cataloguer, so that if there is an
expected conflict in future, and the birth date is known, it could be included.
Saralee Turner
NACO Coordinator
SILAS (Singapore Integrated Library Automation Services)
-----Original Message-----
From: "Program for Cooperative Cataloging" <PCCLIST@loc.gov> on behalf
of "John Wright" <John_Wright@BYU.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:30 PM
To: "PCCLIST@sun8.LOC.GOV" <PCCLIST@sun8.LOC.GOV>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Proposal to allow addition of dates to personal
name headings
Since it appears that the conversation is beginning to come full circle,
I want to reassert my proposal that the LCRI be modified. The option of
always adding a date if it is readily available when creating a heading
is the culprit which, as far as I can tell, caused the initial problem.
When dates are not needed to make a heading unique, they should not be
added. If the 1961- had been included in the 670, but left off the
heading for Diana, Princess of Wales and if the 1928- had been recorded
in the 670, but left off the Warhol, Andy heading, we wouldn't have to
feel embarrassed about the way the catalog looks, nor would we have to
explain why the dates are left open. In both cases, the date was NOT
needed to make the headings unique.
Let's please get to the root of the problem and quit hacking at the
leaves!
Regards,
John B. Wright
===============================
From: "Knop, Judy" <jknop@ATLA.COM>
Subject: Re: Proposal to allow addition of dates to personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
One point which doesn't seem to have been noted so far is that for OCLC users headings
can more efficiently be controlled when dates are present in the heading. When there is
no date, the heading must be controlled individually since it is not immediately apparent
that the name represents the same individual. Leaving dates out of the heading when not
needed to break a conflict will complicate the cataloging process.
judy knop
==============================
From: "Kempe, Deborah" <KEMPE@FRICK.ORG>
Subject: Re: Proposal to allow addition of dates to personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>,
PCCLIST@sun8.loc.gov
To: PCCLIST@sun8.LOC.GOV
Precedence: list
X-YaleITSMailFilter: Version 1.2b (attachment(s) not renamed)
X-Yale-Not-Spam: For more info see: http://www.yale.edu/email/spam/content.html
X-Yale-Spam-Score: * (1.335)
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 130.132.50.8
Status:
I totally agree with Daniel.
________________________________________________________
Deborah Kempe
Chief, Collections Management and Access
Frick Art Reference Library, 10 East 71st St., New York, NY 10021
tel. 212 547-0658 fax 212 879-2091
kempe@frick.org
________________________________________________________
-----Original Message----From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:PCCLIST@loc.gov] On Behalf Of
Starr, Daniel
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 12:23 PM
To: PCCLIST@sun8.LOC.GOV
Subject: Re: Proposal to allow addition of dates to personal name headings
It seems to me that the comments on this proposal reflect two very different viewpoints.
The first is concerned with what makes sense in our environment of shared cataloging
and shared headings. The statements reflecting this viewpoint focus on what are the
requirements for creating unique headings, identifying individuals and associating them
with those headings, what library systems can and cannot do, whether the proposal
creates too much work, which headings might or should be changed and how, etc. The
second viewpoint is concerned with the needs and expectations of the users of our
catalogs. The statements reflecting this viewpoint focus on whether the information we
are providing in headings is sufficient, accurate and complete.
At the recent ALA annual conference I must have heard a dozen times that our public is
turning to Google for information about library material and that the only thing that we
librarians have to offer is that we are the ones who provide vetted authoritative
information. It embarrasses me that we continue knowingly to provide inaccurate and
incomplete information in our catalogs. I think we should do anything possible to
remedy this. The questions of whether to update headings with birth dates, but not those
without any dates, or whether to update headings only for famous people, are red
herrings. The principle behind all of our cataloging should be to provide accurate and
complete information. Once that principle is accepted I'm sure we can figure out how to
accomplish it; it isn't as if every single heading is going to be changed immediately. This
sounds much like the discussion surrounding the implementation of AACR2. We made
the collective decision to implement it after some delay, and it resulted in an
improvement to our catalogs. No one suggests that AACR2 was perfect, and I expect
most of us still have records with pre-AACR2 headings in our catalogs, but that is not an
argument that we should never have made the change. I suggest we accept the proposal,
begin to work out the problems, and in five years we will think it a quaint reminder of
older times when we stumble upon a heading for some obscure person that still has an
open date, 1901#####################################
Daniel Starr
Manager of Bibliographic Operations
Thomas J. Watson Library
The Metropolitan Museum of Art
1000 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10028-0198
212-650-2582
212-570-3847 (fax)
daniel.starr@metmuseum.org
=================================
From: "Bresnan, Mark" <BRESNAN@FRICK.ORG>
Subject: Re: Proposal to allow addition of dates to personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
To: PCCLIST@sun8.LOC.GOV
Precedence: list
X-YaleITSMailFilter: Version 1.2b (attachment(s) not renamed)
X-Yale-Not-Spam: For more info see: http://www.yale.edu/email/spam/content.html
X-Yale-Spam-Score: * (1.335)
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 130.132.50.9
Status:
Debbie: I agree, but see also Sherman’s email about applying dates “willy-nilly” to
headings that don’t need them to differentiate. Motherwell, Robert, for example. What’s
your take on that? Mark
============================
From: Mike Tribby <mike.tribby@QUALITY-BOOKS.COM>
Subject: Re: Proposal to allow addition of dates to personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
To: PCCLIST@sun8.LOC.GOV
Precedence: list
X-YaleITSMailFilter: Version 1.2b (attachment(s) not renamed)
X-Yale-Not-Spam: For more info see: http://www.yale.edu/email/spam/content.html
X-Yale-Spam-Score: (0)
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 130.132.50.48
Status:
"I suggest we accept the proposal, begin to work out the problems, and in
five years we will think it a quaint reminder of older times when we stumble
upon a heading for some obscure person that still has an open date, 1901-"
One step in working out any problems might be to explore the feasibility of
a list of NAR changes being generated weekly. Any thoughts on whether this
could be done?
Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses
===============================
From: "Lasater, Mary C" <mary.c.lasater@VANDERBILT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Proposal to allow addition of dates to personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>,
PCCLIST@sun8.loc.gov
To: PCCLIST@sun8.LOC.GOV
Mike,
I get a paper list each month from my vendor (Marcive) of all
headings (in our file) with changes in the 1xx field and any
authority records with a change to the personal 'unique' name code
in the fixed field. I don't really want to see/review all changes
to authority records.
Mary Charles
=========================
From: Sophia McMillen <sophia@HAWAII.EDU>
Subject: Re: Proposal to allow addition of dates to personal name headings
Comments: To: PCCLIST@loc.gov, Ana Lupe Cristin <acri@loc.gov>, cpso@loc.gov
To: PCCLIST@sun8.LOC.GOV
Precedence: list
X-YaleITSMailFilter: Version 1.2b (attachment(s) not renamed)
X-Yale-Not-Spam: For more info see: http://www.yale.edu/email/spam/content.html
X-Yale-Spam-Score: (0)
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 130.132.50.54
Status:
On 6/23/05 Ana Lupe Cristán wrote:
... Thus, CPSO is considering allowing the addition of all dates to
existing headings ... Allow the optional addition of dates (birth, death
or both) to existing personal name headings at will. (LC and NACO
catalogers are aware of LCRI 22.17 that requires all new headings to have
dates added when these are readily available). Note that catalogers would
not be required to add dates to existing personal name headings ...
We've polled our available catalogers on several of the points raised in
this discussion.
We have unamimous support for the following ideas:
YES, add/edit dates when an existing heading contains errors of fact
(typographical errors, for example).
YES, add dates when an existing heading conflicts with another existing
heading.
We have strong support (5 YES, 1 NO) to this idea:
Accept in principle closing of birth dates with death dates to make
headings appear “correct” but not adding dates to other perfectly good
headings.
We're evenly split between NO and UNSURE for this idea:
Add death dates to a heading only when catalogers determine the name is
well known enough to be worth this kind of exceptional treatment (but not
to headings for the unfamous)
^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^
Sophia A. McMillen
Cataloging Dept., University of Hawaii at Manoa Library
2550 The Mall, Honolulu, HI 96822
sophia@hawaii.edu
phone: (808) 956-2753
================================
From: Mike Tribby <mike.tribby@QUALITY-BOOKS.COM>
Subject: Re: Proposal to allow addition of dates to personal name headings
Comments: To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov>
To: PCCLIST@sun8.LOC.GOV
Precedence: list
X-YaleITSMailFilter: Version 1.2b (attachment(s) not renamed)
X-Yale-Not-Spam: For more info see: http://www.yale.edu/email/spam/content.html
X-Yale-Spam-Score: (0)
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 130.132.50.48
Status:
Thanks, Mary. We, being bottomline conscious in a way that only a for-profit
entity fully can, do not have an authorities vendor. Nor do most of our
customers--many of whom don't even have a cataloger onstaff to explain their
voluminous and comprehensive cataloging specifications when we do orders for
them.
What I'm hoping for is a periodic list of changes that might only need to be
generated during a relatively brief period when I fear that wholesale
changes will be made to NARs involving closing death dates of people
considered significant. Of course name authority changes will continue long
after that, but once the world is made safe for freedom and goodness by the
closing off of Princess Di's record and the like, I'm assuming the volume of
changes will drop off and the situation vis-a-vis changed name headings will
return to normal.
We already check name headings for all new works cataloged, but I'd like to
keep our database relatively clean, too. I'll drop Mary at Marcive a line
and see what it might cost for us to simply purchase their list of changes
if such an option is available.
Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses
=========================