As catalogers begin making changes to existing AACR2 authorities and
recode them as RDA (040 $e rda), it has consequences for our clients
that are following any of our first 3 RDA options.
A quick refresher (RDA options
<http://ac.bslw.com/community/wiki/index.php5/RDA_2.4> ):
1. AACR2 & RDA against AACR2 only
2. AACR2 against AACR2; ignore RDA bibs
3. AACR2 against AACR2; RDA against RDA
4. AACR2 & RDA against AACR2 (1st), RDA (2nd)
5. AACR2 against AACR2 (1st), RDA (2nd); RDA against RDA (1st),
AACR2 (2nd)
The authority record for "Aristotle" (AACR2) was updated on July 18,
2012 with 040 $e rda as well as a few other changes [n 79004182]. Due
to the 040 $e rda being added, however, that suddenly placed that
authority (and others like it) out of the grasp of our clients that do
not have us checking RDA authorities during matching.
So if you have an AACR2 heading with "Aristotle" it will be listed as
unmatched in our system, assuming we're using one of the 3 options
listed above. In order to catch these scenarios, our recommendation is
to change any client currently on Options 1-3 to Option 5 instead.
We plan to enact these changes to your settings over the next several
days. If you would prefer that we do not change your RDA option from
1,2, or 3 to 5 instead, please just let us know.
Nate Cothran
Vice President, Automation Services
533 East 1860 South
Provo, Utah 84606
Phone: +1.800.288.1265, ext. 697
Direct: +1.801.342.5697
nate(a)bslw.com
<mailto:nate@bslw.com?subject=Automation%20Services%20-%20Inquiry> *
www.bslw.com
We thought it might be helpful for those of you who do NACO and/or want
to keep up with what's going on with the LC Name Authority file to pass
along this message from the PCC about interim NACO policies. If you
have questions or would like more information, feel free to contact me.
The copied message is below.
Karen Anderson
Authority Control Librarian
801-356-1852 ext. 231
800-288-1265
kanderson(a)bslw.com
------------------
The following message was sent out on the PCCLIST:
There have been a lot of questions on PCC RDA NACO issues lately -
thanks for being so careful in your NACO work. Your conscientious
approach helps to facilitate the RDA transition of the LC/NACO Authority
File.
But along with so many changes - and with all of them taking place
simultaneously -- it is very easy to become confused about what can and
cannot be done in the LC/NACO Authority File.
I hope this message helps to eliminate some of that confusion.
I am not a policeman and I am not the reassuring voice of reason (alas),
but I do receive a lot of questions and comments about what is going on
in the NACO Authority File, and it makes me think that perhaps some sort
of clarification on multiple topics is needed.
1) Approved PCC NACO Policies--Interim Documentation
In March 2012, the PCC Task Group to Formulate or Recommend PCC/NACO RDA
Policy on Authority Issues recommended NACO policies and best practices
on authority issues in the RDA environment. These policies and best
practice recommendations were reviewed by the PCC Policy Committee and
either approved as submitted, or approved with revisions. All the
approved policies are in force right now. The RDA Toolkit, the LC-PCC
Policy Statements, and the Descriptive Cataloging Manual (DCM) Z1 are on
track to be updated in October to reflect the final PCC-approved
decisions on the recommended NACO policies and best practices.
Until official NACO documentation is updated, PCC NACO catalogers should
consult the Post RDA Test Guidelines
<http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/PCC%20Post%20RDA%20Test%20Guidelines.htm
l> and consider the information on this page official PCC NACO
documentation in the interim period.
2) Changes in the LC/NACO Authority File
All PCC NACO catalogers should be aware of -- and read -- the document
Changes to the LC/NACO Authority File: What LC-PCC RDA Catalogers need
to know <http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/pdf/lcnaf_rdaphase.pdf> .
This document describes in detail the changes taking place in the
LC/NACO Authority File and gives guidance on what you can, cannot, or
should do with records in the file. This document impacts all NACO
catalogers, not just those who have taken the RDA in NACO training.
Everyone should be familiar with what is happening in the LC/NACO
Authority File during the RDA transition.
Please read and study p. 2-3 of the document.
The following is directed to RDA-trained NACO catalogers: those of you
who participated in the US RDA Test, or who have taken the RDA in NACO
training modules and have participated in the two mandatory
post-training webinars.
* You may re-code an AACR2 authority record to RDA if the NAR does
NOT contain a 667 note reading: "THIS 1XX FIELD CANNOT BE USED UNDER RDA
UNTIL THIS RECORD HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND/OR UPDATED" and if the 1XX is
already acceptable under RDA instructions and current PCC policy (see
Post RDA Test Guidelines
<http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/PCC%20Post%20RDA%20Test%20Guidelines.htm
l> ). At the time of the re-coding, you may optionally add additional
fields (046, 37X, etc.) or 670 citations to the authority record.
* You may reevaluate and re-code an AACR2 authority record to RDA
if the NAR DOES contain a 667 note reading: "THIS 1XX FIELD CANNOT BE
USED UNDER RDA UNTIL THIS RECORD HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND/OR UPDATED" The
1XX may need to be adjusted to conform to RDA instructions and current
PCC policy (see Post RDA Test Guidelines
<http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/PCC%20Post%20RDA%20Test%20Guidelines.htm
l> ). At the time of the reevaluation and the re-coding, please remember
that many of the records with 667 notes are coded pre-AACR2 or AACR2
compatible, or are coded AACR2 but the RDA preferred form of name may be
different. These 1xx's should be analyzed to determine the RDA preferred
form of name before re-coding the authority record to RDA. This means
that you may need to search in your database of entry, and/or you may
need to evaluate the existing 670 citations to determine the preferred
name. It is not enough to take a quick glance at the 1xx, accept what
you see, and then re-code to RDA. At the time of the re-coding, you may
optionally add additional fields (046, 37X, etc.) or 670 citations to
the authority record.
* Some AACR2 authority records whose 1XX is NOT suitable for use
under RDA will NOT include a 667 field reading "THIS 1XX FIELD CANNOT BE
USED UNDER RDA UNTIL THIS RECORD HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND/OR UPDATED" These
records will be mechanically reevaluated and re-coded to RDA in 2013.
Please exercise restraint in reevaluating and re-coding these records to
RDA now. Many of these records reside in large hierarchies that will
need to be re-coded together- let's let the machine take care of these
and save us all some time.
Thanks everyone,
Paul Frank
PCC Secretariat
With Day One of RDA Authorities coming up soon (March 31, 2013), we are
exploring enhanced functionality for certain fields.
http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/list/schema_id/4.html
The Open Metadata Registry lists around 250 entries for RDA Roles. We
distilled this 250-member group down to 126 distinct relator terms
[abridger, actor, addressee, animator, annotator, appellant, appellee,
architect, etc]. A lot of the terms had WEMI (Work, Element,
Manifestation, Item) duplication, so we screened those out, which is how
we ended up with 126 unique terms.
However, we also looked at several of our clients that currently retain
X00 $e (excluding 300 $e of course) within their bib records, whether
those bibs are AACR2 or RDA.
One client had 8 different types of X00 $e terms, though two of the
terms [ill., illus.] appear to be the same type (illustrator vs
illuminator).
Another client had roughly 364 different types of X00 $e terms. But we
noticed different spellings of the same type [aftist, aritst, arrist,
artsit] which are most likely supposed to be (artist).
So we wondered whether it would make sense to devise two separate lists
for attempting to control relationship designators (X00 $e) in bib
records:
1. One list of 126 (and growing) unique roles/designators as put
forth by the Open Metadata Registry
2. One union list that is grown from different variations amongst
our clients where some terms may or may not be part of the OMR list
An example with #2 is that we found "attributed writer" in one of our
client's records, though this is not present in the OMR list. It could
be that this particular client prefers to retain this relationship
designator rather than choose one of the current 126 designators from
OMR instead.
With either option, clients that wish to have some form of control
applied to their X00 $e would have alternate spellings corrected to
preferred terms for their ongoing current cataloging. List #2 would have
more entries due to the sometimes subjective cataloging practice of RDA
compared with AACR2. However, either list seems like it would be useful.
We anticipate that we could employ this functionality in our current
system very quickly, but we wanted to send this out and gather any
comments (for or against) first.
Please feel free to let us know what you think about this potential
enhancement.
Nate Cothran
Vice President, Automation Services
533 East 1860 South
Provo, Utah 84606
Phone: +1.800.288.1265, ext. 697
Direct: +1.801.342.5697
nate(a)bslw.com
<mailto:nate@bslw.com?subject=Automation%20Services%20-%20Inquiry> *
www.bslw.com
