No set of rules can ultimately determine the form of a name heading, because that will inevitably depend on the information available to the person creating the authority record. Two people with different information can create different headings for the same person following the same rule set. Authority files are the only way to determine a shared form of name heading.
That being the case, I'm more concerned about not having authority control split between an RDA file and an AACR2 file. We'll better served by a convention which treats established AACR2 headings as "RDA compatible" and treats RDA headings as "AACR2 compatible," thereby enabling a single authority record and, more importantly, a single authority file to be used for both AACR2 and RDA bib records. We already have much more aggresive conventions when it comes to updating authorities than we used to, so we could expect a steady migration of headings and authority records in the direction of RDA. The advantages of authorizing against a single file rather than starting up a second parallel file during this transition would be considerable. I can understand the reasons for using 7XX authority links during the trial period, since it's less intrusive on the relationship of AACR2 established headings and bibs; but it's not going to be the best transition strategy when real implementation begins. Stephen On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Mike Tribby <[email protected]>wrote: > >If we are using authority records from LC, anything other than following > their lead would not make sense. > > Again, not every cataloging agency follows LC's lead. This kind of option > in the RDA rules serves no purpose that I can see. And haven't we heard > plenty in the recent past about not relying on LC for everything? If the > rules allow deviations in practice, deviations are sure to occur. Moreover, > LC does _not_ prepare every authority record in the shared authority file. > > > Mike Tribby > Senior Cataloger > Quality Books Inc. > The Best of America's Independent Presses > > mailto:[email protected] > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brenda Parris Parker > Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 10:59 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA Questions > > If we are using authority records from LC, anything other than following > their lead would not make sense. > > Brenda > > Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > <[email protected]> writes: > >Which is why I suggest that we follow LC's lead in this matter. > > > >Robert L. Maxwell > >Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept. > >6728 Harold B. Lee Library > >Brigham Young University > >Provo, UT 84602 > >(801)422-5568 > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Tribby > >Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 9:42 AM > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA Questions > > > >How does open-ended instruction on just how to note birth and death > >dates achieve the interchangeability and all-important granularity that > >RDA is purported to advance? If I record Lee Perry as "Perry, Lee, > >1936-" and another cataloging agency records him as "Perry, Lee, b. > >1936" how does that achieve anything other than confusion? > > > >If confusion is our goal, I'm all for it at this point. But somehow I > >doubt that's what we're pursuing here. > > > > > > Brenda Parris Parker > Technical Services/Reference Librarian > Brewer Library > Calhoun Community College > Decatur, AL > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.448 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3183 - Release Date: 10/07/10 > 18:34:00 > -- Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist Technical Services, University Libraries University of Minnesota 160 Wilson Library 309 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 Ph: 612-625-2328 Fx: 612-625-3428
