LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST  April 2012

PCCLIST April 2012

Subject:

Re: Alternates for the RDA conversion

From:

"Reser, Dave" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:18:12 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (156 lines)

Hi Richard,

Not sure exactly what records are being deleted that are causing problems-- it may help to send them directly to Ana Cristan ([log in to unmask]) to see if it is a project she is aware of-- she is off at a conference in Mexico City this week, so there won't be an immediate response.

Thanks,
Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 8:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Alternates for the RDA conversion

Mary Charles

You make an interesting observation about the deletion of authority records. We get a regular report from our system of authority records that have been deleted by LC, so that we can check if we need to update any bibliographic records. I've noticed on a number of occasions that authority records have been deleted, where no duplicate existed, and we had used the heading in our database. We've had to recreate these authorities records. I've not noticed, however, that they were pre-AACR2 headings. Could someone from LC confirm whether they have been deleting authority records where no duplicate exists, and if so, would it be possible to stop doing it, please? ;-)

Regards
Richard
_________________________
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library
                                                                        
Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806                                
E-mail: [log in to unmask]                            
 
  

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lasater, Mary Charles
Sent: 23 April 2012 13:20
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Alternates for the RDA conversion

All,

I also have limits on the number of authority records that I load each day. With a linked system it is hard to estimate how a given load will affect the system since a change to one authority record, linked to many
bibliographic records, can and did bring the whole system down.    

On another note, it appears that authority records that are not AACR2 or compatible are being deleted. I notified LC about one last year and was told it wasn't current cataloging, so the authority record was deleted.
I have just 'reinstated' locally some authority records for pre-AACR2 headings... things that would not be established now.  I cannot re-catalog to AACR2 all those titles and think it is counter-productive for these authority records, which represent standard cataloging of the time, to be deleted. The 'unsuitable note' should be added to these instead. A 'pure' RDA authority file  is probably an inappropriate goal.

Mary Charles Lasater
Vanderbilt


-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 2:32 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Alternates for the RDA conversion

I'd like to add some further comments to this. 

Concerning the coding of records, if records coded 008/10=c are defined, at a given stage in the conversion, to be valid for use under RDA, then their remaining coded "c" need be no more problematic to man or machine, than the current status of 008/10=d as valid for use under AACR2. 

Under both the original proposal, and the improved Option 3, all authorised access points needing manual review will be flagged with a
667 note. Mention is made below of "AACR2 headings not suitable for RDA that need to be marked for review, e.g. headings qualified by degree (Ph.D.)". As I understand it these fall under Phase 1 of Option 3:
"Records whose 1XX is not suitable for use under RDA without review (pre-AACR2, AACR2-compatible and certain AACR2 records)". The scope of "certain AACR2 records" is one of the things the Task Group is reviewing, with particular reference to the content of $c subfields, and subject to the next round of RDA change proposals to be considered by JSC, which may or may not broaden the scope of what is allowed in RDA.

Our main issue with the "NACO distribution pipeline" is the ability of our own system to digest changes on the scale that was originally proposed. From the point of view of this large, national library, it's not the case that "changes to large numbers of records are not a problem as long as the heading (1XX) itself stays the same". Any change to an authority record in our system automatically reindexes all our bibliographic records that use that authority, regardless of whether the authorised access point has changed. This function can not be switched off or circumvented. Given the other processes that need to be run constantly on the system, redistribution on the scale that was originally envisaged would cause a major headache, to say the least, which is why we greet the Implementation Task Group's revised scenarios with some relief.

Regards
Richard
_________________________
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library
                                                                        
Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806                                
E-mail: [log in to unmask]                            
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Joseph Kiegel
Sent: 21 April 2012 00:18
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Alternates for the RDA conversion

Comments from the Univ. of Washington, after discussion here:

The original proposal from the task group has many strengths, as outlined in the alternate scenarios:  headings not suitable under RDA are clearly identified, all records that may receive 046s and 378s get them, and all records suitable for use under RDA are coded as such.
These are goals worth achieving.

It is important to acknowledge that the authority file is not only for human use but also for machine use.  The presumption voiced on this listserv that catalogers can tell which headings are usable is not true in a machine
environment:  the computer will not know which headings are usable.

As PCC plans to use the authority file in a linked-data environment, it will be very important to populate the file with needed data elements, and the
046 is one of them.  It would be unfortunate to fall back on partial and manual addition of this field, when it can be done programmatically by machine.

The authority file also needs clear coding on the status of records.
That is, AACR2 headings suitable for use under RDA need to be coded as RDA.  A situation where machines need to ignore coding and make assumptions about what it "really" means is fragile and does not provide a sound basis for the authority file.  The library world may be able to limp along with this, but when these data are exposed on the Web, records need accurate and current coding.

We support the task group's original proposal and do not find any of the alternate scenarios acceptable for the long term.  If an alternate scenario such as Alternate 3 is required in the short-term, it has to be packaged with a specific plan to remedy its shortcomings.  The "Left for the future" 
section of the scenarios document does not provide that plan.

In our view, the real problem is the capacity of the NACO distribution pipeline.  It was adequate in the past, but not in today's environment. 
Rather than discussing inadequate alternate scenarios, we would rather see the discussion shift to how the pipeline can be brought up to a capacity that meets current demands.  This seems like a better solution to the problem, and will allow the authority file to migrate to the form it needs.

In our view, a minimum capacity for the pipeline is 10% of the file per day, which would be about 800,000 records/day.  This would allow a complete reload in 10 days, which is still a long time, but acceptable.
Surely future plans to "pour it into a new data structure" will require this kind of capacity, so we may as well start now.

From the point of view of a local library, changes to large numbers of records are not a problem as long as the heading (1XX) itself stays the same.  We can load hundreds of thousands of records quickly if the only changes are added note fields or changes to coded values.

Comments on specific alternates:

Alternate 3:  it does not seem to cover AACR2 headings not suitable for RDA that need to be marked for review, e.g. headings qualified by degree (Ph. 
D.).

Alternate 5:  this looks acceptable if it can be carried out in the week described.  However, if pipeline capacity is an issue, we do not understand how this is possible.



>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gary L Strawn
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 3:20 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [PCCLIST] Alternates for the RDA conversion
>
> The PCC Acceptable Headings Implementation Task Group has received a 
> number of comments suggesting that the work plan devised by the 
> earlier PCC Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings for 
> manipulating the LC/NACO Authority File for use under RDA involves the

> unnecessary re-issuance of too many records over too great a span of 
> time.  The present task group has devised a number of alternate 
> scenarios, described in the attached document.  (This document is also

> available from the Task Group's download site:
> http://files.library.northwestern.edu/public/pccahitg)  All these 
> scenarios involve the performance of RDA-related mechanical changes 
> described in documents previously distributed by the task group
("Dept."
> becomes "Department", for example), but differ in other changes to be 
> made, and the schedule on which the changes are performed.
>
> The task group invites public discussion of the merits of the original

> plan and the proposed alternates, and is happy to entertain 
> suggestions for yet other possibilities.  Even if you've expressed an 
> opinion on this matter before, please do so again, as the audience may

> now be a bit broader.
>
> Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc.
> Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL
60208-2300
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]   voice: 847/491-2788   fax:
847/491-8306
> Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit.         BatchCat version: 
> 2007.22.416
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager
https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=PCCLIST;ad63c839.1204
listserv.loc.gov
crawl=CC-MAIN-2022-49
72303
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:VTFAAPNXR2JLN3EVN6JWVWGAJGHYKY6G
<urn:uuid:c417586b-79fa-4ffb-94c5-17dad0a75c4a>
2022-11-27T09:00:40Z
140.147.239.86
text/html
sha1:K3A5VOT646NIPZYJYNKS2ME2W3NFI7ZC
<urn:uuid:94e6de4d-de9e-47af-9014-3323f0a5694d>
https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=PCCLIST;ad63c839.1204
response
<urn:uuid:7e8196fa-f09e-4270-8b64-3bd8840a2968>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2022-49
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for November/December 2022
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-28
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.4-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/