Identity and attributes

I’ve been pondering what information is presented with a name and what information must be sought elsewhere since my announcement of this blog was signed with only my name and no other identifying information.  On AUTOCAT, where it is customary but not required to use a signature file, the announcement caused a flurry of posts about my identity and my credentials.  As far as I know, I am the only Lois Reibach in the world, but my niece is also lreibach and she has taken that identity in a number of online services.  What I have finally come to understand is that I did not include any Attributes of a Person as defined by FRAD section 4.1.  Probably the most important attributes in this case are:

• Affiliation
• Field of activity
• Profession/occupation

These attributes are all additions to those identified in FRBR.  So perhaps my marketing was lacking, but I have now been afforded the opportunity to look closer at the language of FRBR and FRAD, because at first I was looking at the task of identifying, which is where I learned that attributes were needed.

 

Controlling series headings

MARC Proposal No. 2008-07 which will make field 440 obsolete in MARC 21 was apparently passed at ALA, based on discussion I have seen.  The discussion included in the proposal centered on impact on local systems and OCLC.

Some comments on 2008-DP02 expressed concern about repetition of data in the 490 and 8XX fields. The benefits of a simplified decision process without an adverse impact on local systems or OCLC may outweigh the minimal consequences of repetition of fields. Simplified decision-making would also assist in training new staff and enhance series work-flows in libraries.

There were also concerns that some local systems would not be able to convert field 440 into field 490. On the other hand, it was pointed out that based on MARC principles, obsolete data fields are allowed to remain in records.

The discussion paper made the assumption that OCLC will investigate changing existing records in WorldCat to move data from the 440 field to the 490 and 8XX fields if the proposal is approved. This will support the ability to control all series headings in WorldCat bibliographic records. Parameters for selecting which records to change automatically, handling differences in the use of non-filing indicators in 440 and 830 fields, and any conflicts with existing PCC guidelines still need to be discussed with OCLC.

I see some difficulties in implementing this proposal for both local systems and OCLC, but overall I am in favor for two reasons.  Separating transcription from controlled access is probably more important to catalogers and scholars than to other users of our data, but I have long been bothered by the loss of transcription when a series heading was controlled in my most recent local system.  Generally the change only included presence or absence of initial articles or the word “series”  but I still would have preferred retaining the series heading as transcribed.  The other reason I am in favor of the proposal is that I hope it will eventually lead to uniform displays of series entries.  The local system I used handled 440 very differently from 8xx, leading to the loss of collocation for series entries.

Geocoding LCSH in the Biodiversity Heritage Library

The Code4Lib Journal published Geocoding LCSH in the Biodiversity Heritage Library in issue number 2 back in March, but for some reason my alert for LCSH just brought it up today, apparently based on a changed comment which I don’t see.  The abstract states

Reusing metadata generated through years of cataloging practice is a natural and pragmatic way of leveraging an institution’s investment in describing its resources. Using Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), the Biodiversity Heritage Library generates new interfaces for browsing and navigating books in a digital library. LCSH are grouped into tag clouds and plotted on interactive maps using methods available within the Google Maps Application Programming Interface (API). Code examples are included, and issues related to these interfaces and the underlying LCSH data are examined.

One of the points I particularly liked was the importance of good cataloging data to start with.  Computers can do a lot to manipulate data, but it has to be created before it can be manipulated.

Lorcan Dempsey’s post on name authorities

Yesterday Lorcan Dempsey had an excellent post on name authorities. 

Libraries have invested significantly in name authority work over the years, and have created extensive infrastructure to help manage names of people and organizations. The relationship between this work and broader interest in this topic is something that will need to be addressed in coming years if this work is to continue to have utility.

He goes on to highlight the VIAF, explain areas where consistent names are needed, and point out other projects in this area.  One question he raises is

should I, for example, be able to augment the authorities data held about me?

This is a question that has occurred to me also.  Who better than the author to know what works are theirs, and which belong to somebody else with a similar name.  But without some kind of a gatekeeper, our carefully constructed authority data could be opened up to something like the Wikipedia wars.

Moving Image Genre/Form Project Report

As announced on several discussion lists and posted on the CPSO site

On July 9th, 2008, the Cataloging Policy and Support Office (CPSO) presented a report on the moving image genre/form project to the Library of Congress Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access (ABA) management team. The report includes recommendations for expanding the genre/form project beyond the moving image and radio program headings assigned and created by LC’s Motion Picture, Broadcasting, and Recorded Sound Divison. ABA management has approved this expansion to include other disciplines and CPSO will be releasing further details on implementation strategies as these are developed. The report is available in PDF format via the link below.

Report on the Moving Image Genre/Form Project (PDF, 129K)

I am glad to see that this project will be expanded to other disciplines.  The report points out the principles guiding this project and has several recommendations, including exploring methods for future collaboration with the broader cataloging community.

Future of authority control

One of the areas this blog will cover is trends in authority control.  I think there will be more cooperation in the establishment of authority records.  This is covered in section 1.3 of the LC working group’s report, On the Record.  I see cooperation happening in a number of areas, from more participation through activities like funnel groups, such as the new ATLA SACO Funnel Project, to a broadening of responsibility in the area of training.  I also see the VIAF (see yesterday’s post) growing to include the abstracting and indexing community.  My ideal would incorporate all worldwide forms of an author’s name, with appropriate computer coding to spit out the right form based on the origination of the query.  Apparently work incorporating publishers and indexers, with input from the library community, has begun, as I found evidence of a meeting that took place early in 2007, reported here.

VIAF: The Virtual International Authority File

I am reading Deanna Marcum’s response to On the Record: Report of the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control.  There are several places where she mentions VIAF, which is 

a joint project of the Library of Congress (LC), the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek (DNB), the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF), and OCLC. The project’s goal is to match and link the library authority files.

 

 so I decided to go check it out.  Try playing with the heading Wilms, Johann Wilhelm which includes links to authority records from all the participants.  I like the way you can see from the combined authority record the form used by each library, and click to get a full view of the individual records. 

Australian workshop on RDA to include impact of FRAD

If your travel budget is better than mine, you might want to attend the Australian Committee on Cataloguing’s forthcoming ACOC seminar “RDA : next generation cataloguing standard”. 

This seminar aims to answer your questions about RDA and its implementation in Australia. The history and development of RDA will be discussed, especially the impact of the conceptual models FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) and FRAD (Functional Requirements for Authority Data) on the new standard. It will also highlight the relationships to, and differences from, AACR.

Thanks to Library Intelligencer for pointing this out.

ALA: You Know FRBR, But Have You Ever Met FRAD

The meeting that I most regret missing at ALA is You Know FRBR, But Have You Ever Met FRAD.  I found an excellent write-up on the LITA Blog.  Being new to blogging, I’m having trouble quoting a large portion or the report, so I will just highlight the second speaker, Ed Jones, National University Library in San Diego, California.

Jones’ personal interest in the FRAD model comes from his view that it would help him think about authority data in new ways just as FRBR helped him think of bibliographic data in new ways. He quoted Bernard Shaw to express this view better: “You see things and say ‘Why?’ but I dream things that never were and I say ‘Why not?” His explorations of what the DNB and Wikipedia.de are doing with authority data and control numbers (not to be confused with Identifiers) are especially very interesting.

Hopefully Ed Jones will write up and publish this presentation, as he did with his ALA presentation from 2004, reported on here.

The other speakers were Glenn Patton, repeating the presentation I mentioned in my previous post, and Athena Salaba, Kent State University, with an introduction to FRASAR (Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records)

ALA: Getting Ready for RDA and FRBR: What You Need to Know

One of the meetings I would have liked to attend at ALA was Getting Ready for RDA and FRBR: What You Need to Know.  This was reported on in Metadata Blog.  There were three speakers, but the most relevant part is:

Glenn Patton, Director of WorldCat Quality Management, OCLC
Glenn Patton introduced Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD). Mainly, this is applying the underlying theories in FRBR to authority data. There are two objectives of this working group, namely, to gain a clear understanding of how authority data functions correctly, and to clarify the underlying concepts and improve the use of authority data in the future. Patton talked about the uses of the authority file by the catalogers and the users and brought up the model to show us what the group has come up with (see pages 4 and 7 of the report for the figures).

The report referred to is Functional Requirements for Authority Data: a Conceptual Model.  This is a topic that I expect to see a lot more of in the future.