Re: [RDA-L] Alternate forms of name as access points
Using terms like entry is confusing.
RDA has a quite simple structure at its core, and one not dependent on thinking
only in card catalog terms:
1. Gather up the attributes of the entity, and record/transcribe them. Whether
dealing with manifestations, works, persons, or subjects, the process is
essentially the same.
2. Establish some identifier for the entity (a single authorized access point,
for example). If there are other possible identifiers refer users to the
authorized identifier.
3. In the second half of RDA, establish relationships between entities, such as
between a resource and a person. The person can be represented by the single
authorized access point. In traditional cataloging, we say making an entry; in
RDA, we're establishing a relationship, which is a neutral term that is more
easily understood by system developers.
Such a process can be used to build card catalogs (where terms like entry
make sense), or relational or object-oriented databases, where identifiers are
more machine-friendly tools and where there is significantly more flexibility
in display. For example, instead of the blinkered perspective in card catalogs,
where we are mostly forced to see only headings and references in a flat file
structure, all of the attributes of a Person could be displayed.
In this example in WorldCat Identities:
http://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n79-41870
one sees the authorized access point (Woolf, Virginia, 1882-1941) as the main
identifier, and the variant access points listed on the right, along with many
other attributes.
In the Virtual International Authority File, different authorized access points
have been established and this is where a machine identifier is used to connect
them:
http://viaf.org/viaf/39385478/#Woolf,_Virginia,_1882-1941
It's of note that when RDA specifies the use of identifiers, control
number-style identifiers are always mentioned first, before authorized access
points. It's in the second half of RDA, on relationships, where one sees
identifiers put to use to connect entities.
Once one sees the pattern, RDA is actually the simplest way of presenting how
bibliographic data can be organized, as it can be applied to many different
implementation scenarios.
Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library
From: J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: September-13-13 3:12 PM
To: Brenndorfer, Thomas
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: Alternate forms of name as access points
Thomas posted:
Preferred name basis for authorized access point
Variant name basis for variant access point
Variant name basis for variant access point
Could this not be misunderstood to mean one may have more than one entry
for the same entity in a bibliographic record, despite your comment
that they should be displayed as see references?
So much of RDA's terminology is capable of being misinterpreted.
While LAC puts alternate forms in 9XX in the bibliographic record,
these are seen as cross references, not access points.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Alternate forms of name as access points
-Original Message- From: Brenndorfer, Thomas tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 10:12:03 -0400 2. Establish some identifier for the entity (a single authorized access point, for example). If there are other possible identifiers refer users to the authorized identifier. And you think that's reasonable ? These days, in our linked century ? Why a single authorized access point ? And why to refer the poor user to something else if (s)he actually did hit an identifier ? If the user search for: Pieter Breugel the Elder or Brueghel the Droll or Peasant Breughel and the system knows who are we talking about, why to send (s)he to Bruegel, Pieter, approximately 1525-1569 i.e. giving her/him the authorized access point instead of giving her/him what (s)he is looking for ? Dan -- Dan Matei director, Direcția Patrimoniu Cultural Mobil, Imaterial și Digital [Movable, Intangible and Digital Heritage Department] (aka CIMEC) Institutul Național al Patrimoniului [National Heritage Institute], București [Bucharest, Romania] tel. 0725 253 222, (+4)021 317 90 72; fax (+4)021 317 90 64, www.cimec.ro
Re: [RDA-L] Alternate forms of name as access points
Dan Matei posted:
These days, in our linked century ? Why a single authorized
access point ? And why to refer the poor user to something else if
(s)he actually did hit an identifier ?
I absolutely agree that if one searches Clemens, Samuel, one should
be taken seamlessly to Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn etc. as
opposed to seeing a see reference. But that does not mean Clemens,
Samuel should be an added entry (aka access point) in each of those
bibliographic records. The alternate name should be in the authority
record for Twain, Mark.
This does not mean that Twain, Mark should not be the main entry
(aka preferred access point). One needs a single form of the name for
creating subject and added entries for works, and for single entry
bibliographies and footnotes.
To repeat it once again, we need ILS development more than new rules
and coding.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Alternate forms of name as access points
The rest of my post referred to the possibility of identifers replacing authorized access points, and that RDA lists identifiers before authorized access points. The implication is that, yes, users can be taken directly to the entity sought, not to another access point. RDA, though, doesn't preclude the traditional card catalog approach. The instructions from AACR2 are dropped in in many places so one can continue to create legacy catalogs. But the starting point has changed. RDA allows one to talk about main/added entries and references, and it allows one to talk about relationships and the direct links described below. RDA, as a new baseline, supports these different implementation scenarios, and it can be seen to function as a bridge between these scenarios. This bridge needed to be constructed before new systems are designed. We have to make it clear as to what the things (entities) of interest are in catalogs, and how exactly they are related. It's easer to derive main/added entries from a discussion about relationships than vice versa. The older vocabulary was rooted in physical card catalog construction, which means systems designers would be forced to use metaphors rather than use the more common language of entity-relationship models. Note that in RDA access points always follow identifiers in the relationship chapters, and the instructions for authorized and variant access points always follow the instructions for choosing and recording attribute elements for the entity. The emphasis has shifted away from the card catalog paradigm. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dan Matei Sent: September-14-13 3:53 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Alternate forms of name as access points -Original Message- From: Brenndorfer, Thomas tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 10:12:03 -0400 2. Establish some identifier for the entity (a single authorized access point, for example). If there are other possible identifiers refer users to the authorized identifier. And you think that's reasonable ? These days, in our linked century ? Why a single authorized access point ? And why to refer the poor user to something else if (s)he actually did hit an identifier ? If the user search for: Pieter Breugel the Elder or Brueghel the Droll or Peasant Breughel and the system knows who are we talking about, why to send (s)he to Bruegel, Pieter, approximately 1525-1569 i.e. giving her/him the authorized access point instead of giving her/him what (s)he is looking for ? Dan -- Dan Matei director, Direcția Patrimoniu Cultural Mobil, Imaterial și Digital [Movable, Intangible and Digital Heritage Department] (aka CIMEC) Institutul Național al Patrimoniului [National Heritage Institute], București [Bucharest, Romania] tel. 0725 253 222, (+4)021 317 90 72; fax (+4)021 317 90 64, www.cimec.ro
Re: [RDA-L] Alternate forms of name as access points
Thomas posted:
Preferred name basis for authorized access point
Variant name basis for variant access point
Variant name basis for variant access point
Could this not be misunderstood to mean one may have more than one entry
for the same entity in a bibliographic record, despite your comment
that they should be displayed as see references?
So much of RDA's terminology is capable of being misinterpreted.
While LAC puts alternate forms in 9XX in the bibliographic record,
these are seen as cross references, not access points.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Alternate forms of name as access points
Mac Elrod wrote: Preferred name basis for authorized access point Variant name basis for variant access point Variant name basis for variant access point Could this not be misunderstood to mean one may have more than one entry for the same entity in a bibliographic record, despite your comment that they should be displayed as see references? So much of RDA's terminology is capable of being misinterpreted. In RDA chapter 18, we're told to use the identifier or the authorized access point to record the relationship to a person, etc. associated with the resource. Variant access points are in chapter 8, which is generally understood in our current scenario as applying to authority records, not bibliographic records. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Alternate forms of name
Our English client libraries use the English forms of the names of
Canadian government agencies. Our French client libraries use French
forms of the names of the same agencies. Most Canadian Federal
libraries have two records, one with each form, for bilingual
publications.
This is all taken care of quite nicely by AACR2/LACRI/MARC21 (with
alternate forms of personal names in 900. corporate names 910, etc.)
I see nothing in RDA or the various proposals for alternate metadata
which would allow us to handle this, much less Dalai Lama with number
and date for public libraries, and a name know to very few for
university libraries. But we can handle that now.
Whatever happened to the idea of an international authority file, with
linked differing forms of name for different languages of the
catalogue?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
AW: [RDA-L] Alternate forms of name
I expect rules on variant forms of names as well as rules for authority control to come in part B of RDA. Concerning Mac's question on VIAF, I would like to draw your attention to information on the website of the German National Library. http://www.d-nb.de/eng/wir/projekte/viaf_info.htm Best wishes, Gudrun -- Gudrun Henze Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Office for Library Standards Adickesallee 1 D-60322 Frankfurt am Main Telefon: +49-69-1525-1485 Telefax: +49-69-1525-1010 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.d-nb.de -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von J. McRee Elrod Gesendet: Mittwoch, 4. April 2007 10:30 An: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Betreff: [RDA-L] Alternate forms of name Our English client libraries use the English forms of the names of Canadian government agencies. Our French client libraries use French forms of the names of the same agencies. Most Canadian Federal libraries have two records, one with each form, for bilingual publications. This is all taken care of quite nicely by AACR2/LACRI/MARC21 (with alternate forms of personal names in 900. corporate names 910, etc.) I see nothing in RDA or the various proposals for alternate metadata which would allow us to handle this, much less Dalai Lama with number and date for public libraries, and a name know to very few for university libraries. But we can handle that now. Whatever happened to the idea of an international authority file, with linked differing forms of name for different languages of the catalogue?
