CROSS REFERENCE TASK GROUP - FINAL REPORT
December 17, 1999
(accepted by the Standing Committee on Standards, Jan. 2000)
Contents:
Membership
Charge
Deliverables
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
Report
- Background
- General comments
- Broad principles
- Specific recommendations
- Rules
- Rule interpretations
- Presentation to and use by catalogers
- Ideas for other groups to pursue
- Rejected Ideas
- List of works consulted
John Attig; Linda Barnhart(Chair); Sherman Clarke; Stephen Hearn; Rhoda Kesselman;
Chris Martyn; Adam Schiff; Manon Theroux
Assuming an environment of computerized bibliographic control, review the
provisions for references stated in AACR2r and the associated LCRIs to determine
how the current complement of guidelines for references could be adjusted to
accommodate efficiency and simplicity in cataloging as well as the change from
a manual to an automated environment. Conduct a review of current provisions
with a view to:
- identifying a basic set of references appropriate to different types of
headings in most library catalogs, and determining when additional references
might be appropriate;
- continuing to meet the needs of a broad range of interests of a widely-shared
authority system;
- ensuring the integrity of a file that must be subject to a careful set
of file management considerations;
- reducing the number of restrictions and exceptions to an absolute minimum;
- determining if any references should be eliminated or added;
- determining the presentation of reference provisions that would best serve
catalogers, e.g., associating them with specific rules, associating them
with a specific chapter, presenting them combined together in a single chapter,
some other presentation, or keeping the current one.
- Recommendations for rule changes to AACR2r for consideration by CC:DA.
- Recommendations for changes or additions to the LCRIs for consideration
by LC.
- Recommendations on how best to present the complement for provisions regarding
references to assist ease of use by catalogers.
The Task Group would like to thank Brian Schottlaender, Gary Strawn, Kay
Guiles, Crystal Graham, and Joan Schuitema for their helpful comments on earlier
drafts of this report.
The Task Group recommends five changes to AACR and twelve changes to the
LCRIs. In addition, we have several recommendations for broader discussion
within the profession, and for issues that other groups should pursue.
One major area that cut across several of the recommendations was the need
to articulate the differences between shared authority data and data appropriate
for local authority files. Another major area that initiated several recommendations
was the notion that some references in authority records may serve the purpose
of automated heading checking and maintenance. Several changes were proposed
out of concern for users in a more global environment, where they might be
searching catalogs not in their native language. The Group also made recommendations
to include a few small things missing from AACR2, including the addition of
a very few clarifying examples to promote global consistency.
Recommendation #1: Add a sentence to AACR2 rule 21.4D1
parallel to the instruction in AACR rule 21.4D2 regarding explanatory references
from the personal name to the official name.
Recommendation #2: Adapt LCRI text to add to AACR2 rule
26.2A2 to give more guidance and thus more consistency internationally.
Recommendation #3: Delete AACR2 rule 26.2B (including
all subrules: 26.2B1; 26.2B2; 26.2B3; 26.2B4).
Recommendation #4: Add LCRI text to AACR2 rule 26.3A6
regarding written-out abbreviations, including special symbols.
Recommendation #5: Restrict the circumstances in AACR2
rule 26.4B4 for making references from titles proper to collective titles.
Recommended changes to LCRI:
Recommendation #6: Form a new group to re-evaluate and
re-write the LCRI for Chapter 26, particularly the section on Linking References,
to expand the definition of linking references and the circumstances under
which linking references can be made.
Recommendation #7: Delete part of LCRI 26.2 in conjunction
with moving that text into AACR2 (Recommendation #2).
Recommendation #8: Remove the exception in LCRI 26.2,
Referring from Variant Forms, point (4) for German, Dutch, and related languages.
Recommendation #9: Remove the exception in LCRI 26.2,
special considerations, point (3) for Hebrew names.
Recommendation #10: Add a new instruction to LCRI 26.2
to prefer forms corresponding to usage over forms corresponding to qualifiers
in constructing references.
Recommendation #11: Add a new section to LCRI 26.2
regarding the handling of variant dates.
Recommendation #12: Move LCRI 26.2B2, 26.3B3, and 26.2B4
(pending the recommended deletion of AACR2 rule 26.2B) to LCRI 26.2. Some of
the text needs to be revised slightly so that the mention of name-title references
is removed.
Recommendation #13: Revise part of LCRI 26.2C to clarify
and broaden applicability of see also references from individuals to the group
for NACO libraries.
Recommendation #14: Rewrite LCRI 26.3A3, References
from Inverted Names of Government Subheadings (including changing this caption),
to allow greater cataloger discretion to construct alternate direct order forms
and to cover a parallel, currently unaddressed situation.
Recommendation #15: Delete LCRI 26.3A6 (pending the
recommended transfer of wording to AACR2 rules 26.3A6).
Recommendation #16: Clarify and expand LCRI 26.3B-C
(See also references and Explanatory references) to guide catalogers to make
see also references for heads of state (etc.) bi-directional (from official
name to personal name, and from personal name to official name).
Recommendation #17: Rescind the practice described
in LCRI 26.5 of adding date qualifiers to all references to uniform titles
headings of the form "[Name]. Works ", "[Name]. Selections ", and "Bible "
- Explicitly allow the creation of a reference for
the "citation form" of a personal name based on cataloger's judgement without
ascertaining usage or providing justification from print sources.
- Implement "spell-checker" functionality in library
OPACs.
- Form a group to explore further the issues surrounding
references from translated titles: the monographs approach and the music
approach.
- Monitor further developments to allow the creation
of references in non-Roman scripts.
-
Background
The Task Group conducted its work primarily through email discussion.
We began by reviewing the literature, the report of the Joint Task Group
on Streamlining Authority Record Creation, AACR2r and the LC Rule Interpretations.
We took as our universe all name (personal, corporate, conference), name/title,
title, and series headings, omitting only topical subjects from our review.
Our work was guided by the phrase in the charge "to accommodate efficiency
and simplicity in cataloging." Not only did we strive to make the creation
of authority records easier; we also wanted to make authority records more
effective (e.g., users should get better results; records should be more
useful). We hoped to provide consistency and simplicity both in cataloging
rules and in the resultant syndetic structure, thus providing clearer and
more useful references for online catalog users. We also recognized that "see" references
are made for disparate purposes, e.g., (1) to redirect user searches, (2)
to enable automatic error checking, and (3) to collocate entries for differentiation
(e.g., for acronyms, occasionally for series variants). All these purposes
seem legitimate to us, and we have tried to value each type of reference
correctly, based on its intended use.
-
General comments
The comments in this section provide both an overview and context for the
more specific recommendations that follow.
-
Indexes in online catalogs versus manual card files
An area that requires fuller discussion, and perhaps research, is
an exploration of how indexes in online catalogs differ in form and
function from the manual card files that were prevalent when AACR was
written. This Task Group has tried to work envisioning indexes and
displays in various online systems, giving thought to how displays
could be consolidated or collapsed to give clearer direction to users.
System designers should be encouraged to think more deeply about
how "see" references (and headings generally) should index. Some useful
filing conventions long established in card catalogs, e.g., filing
parenthetical qualifiers together and ahead of other following data,
filing dates such as "b. 1886" chronologically, etc., have often not
been carried over into the online indexing of normalized headings and
references.
Beyond this job of recovery, there are other possibilities for improvements
in the utility of references in OPAC displays. For example, if online
systems indexed only subfield a for the typical 400 name data, a more
useful collocation of headings to choose from could be achieved, especially
if 670 data were also made accessible to make the choosing easier.
At the same time, the 400 data could be maintained in its current form
on the authority record to catch erroneously formulated headings. Consider
which is better for the user looking up "brown thomas":
Brown, Thomas
Title
Title
Brown, Thomas, 1735-1779
SEARCH UNDER Brown, Thomas C. (Thomas Combs), 1735-1779
Brown, Thomas, 1825-1855
SEARCH UNDER Brown, Tom, 1825-1855
Brown, Thomas, 1837-1900
Title
Title
Title
Brown, Thomas, 1899-1960
SEARCH UNDER Brown, Thomas M, 1899-1960
Brown, Thomas, 1933-
SEARCH UNDER Brown, Thomas B., 1933-
Brown, Thomas, 1940-
Title
Title
Brown, Thomas, 1955-
SEARCH UNDER Brown, Thomas W., 1955-
Brown, Thomas A., 1837-1900
SEARCH UNDER Brown, Thomas, 1837-1900
Brown, Thomas A. (Thomas Alfred), 1960-
SEARCH UNDER Brown, Thomas Alfred, 1960-
Brown, Thomas Alfred, 1960-
Title
or:
Brown, Thomas
SEARCH ALSO UNDER
Brown, Thomas B., 1933-
Brown, Thomas C. (Thomas Combs), 1735-1779
Brown, Thomas M., 1899-1960
Brown, Thomas W., 1955-
Brown, Tom, 1825-1855
Title
Title
Brown, Thomas, 1837-1900
Title
Title
Title
Brown, Thomas, 1940-
Title
Title
Brown, Thomas A.
SEARCH UNDER
Brown, Thomas, 1837-1900
Brown, Thomas Alfred, 1960-
Brown, Thomas Alfred, 1960-
Title
The second index presents as much information as the first, with
references just as precise, but in significantly less space and with
a lot less visual clutter. In short, one could make a case for excluding
qualifying subfields from references, and letting the referred-to headings
disambiguate references as a general rule.
-
Keyword indexes and phrase indexes
An area potentially ripe for substantive change and an area that
the Task Group discussed in depth is the notion that keyword indexing
obviates the need for certain kinds of cross references. Several members
of the Group argued that some references particularly rotated corporate
and conference headings were no longer necessary given the current
environment in online catalog technology. Because all terms are indexed
in a keyword index, such references could be seen as unnecessary, even
obsolete.
More members of the Group agreed with the Joint Task Group that preceded
us that there is probably not yet enough commonality in our current
systems to do away with such references. While keyword title and subject
indexes are fairly standard, many systems do not yet provide an "author
keyword" index, nor do some libraries see an advantage in providing
such an index. In addition, few online public access catalogs include
4xx or 5xx fields from authority records in their keyword indexes;
their structure and information does not "fit" with the keyword concept.
The syndetic structure that does not function at all in a keyword index
is indispensable in an A-to-Z phrase index to fulfill the "collocating" function
of the catalog. Therefore, the cross reference structure cannot be
simplified because of keywording, and must remain intact to serve the
phrase index. This Task Group has not recommended the simplification
of any rules or rule interpretations solely because of the keyword
function in online catalogs.
-
Problems that improved cross references will not fix
As described by Nirmala Bangalore, there are some problems that even
improved cross reference structures will not fix:
- Searching personal names in direct order (i.e., forename followed
by surname) in systems that do not have rotated heading indexes
- Typos or obvious mistakes
- Searching the wrong index
- Use of Boolean operators within an index not following the search
syntax, or in a system where they're not allowed
-
Broad principles
Several themes emerged as the Task Group discussed various issues and
concerns regarding references in the current online environment.
One major area that cut across several of the recommendations was the
need to articulate the differences between shared authority data and data
appropriate for local authority files. Members of the Group wondered when
it would be appropriate to introduce the concept and wording of "shared
authorities" into AACR2. We stopped short of recommending that be undertaken
now, but perhaps an opportunity will arise when and if AACR2 is reorganized.
There may be more flexibility (and indeed, it may be more appropriate)
to gradually add this concept and language to the LCRIs.
Another major area that initiated several recommendations was the notion
that some references in authority records may serve the purpose of automated
heading checking and maintenance. The need for these references seems to
be increasing as online library systems become larger and more sophisticated,
and as we develop ever larger files of legacy data. The Task Group sees
this need increasing in the future, as demands intensify for cross database
links and displays.
Several changes were proposed out of concern for users in a more global
environment, where they might be searching catalogs not in their native
language. The Task Group thought that users unfamiliar with a particular
language might search upon terms that presently are considered too "generic" to
make as cross references. Although adding such references will result in
longer records, we believe the result will be better user service and fewer
exceptions for catalogers to have to remember.
The Group also made recommendations to include a few small things missing
from AACR2, including the addition of a very few clarifying examples to
promote global consistency.
-
Specific recommendations
-
Rules
Recommendation #1: Add a sentence to AACR2 rule
21.4D1 parallel to the instruction in AACR rule 21.4D2 regarding explanatory
references from the personal name to the official name. The recommended
additional text is shown below in double underscore.
21.4D1. Official communications
Enter a work that falls into one of the following categories
under the corporate heading for the official (see 24.20 and 24.27B):
a) an official communication from a head of state, head of
government, or head of an international body (e.g., a message
to a legislature, a proclamation, an executive order other
than one covered by 21.31)
b) an official communication from a pope, patriarch, bishop,
etc.(e.g., an order, decree, pastoral letter, bull, encyclical,
constitution, or an official message to a council, synod, etc.).
Make an added entry under the personal heading for the person.
Make an explanatory reference from the personal heading to the
corporate heading (see 26.3C1).
Rationale: The Task Group noted that AACR2 rule 21.4D1 instructs catalogers
to make added entries for personal names in various situations. The Group
thought that it was important conceptually to communicate to users through
syndetic structure the relationship between these two headings from both
the personal name and from the official name, in addition to the actual
usage of the headings on bibliographic records. It is perhaps even more
important to provide the user with the official name as a reference from
the personal name, because of the complex structure of that official
form of name. The Group would like to see rule 21.4D1 made parallel to
21.4D2 so the "bi-directionality" of the explanatory references is made
clearer. To provide appropriate information, consistency and simplicity,
these references need to go both from official name to personal name,
and from personal name to official name.
The Group also noted that AACR2 mandates an explanatory reference
in 21.4D2, 24.20B2 and 26.3C1 from the corporate name to the
personal name. In practice, and as interpreted by LCRI, catalogers
construct simple see also references. The Task Group is comfortable
leaving AACR2 as written to enable libraries which can create
explanatory references to do so. A related proposal to change
the corresponding LCRI is made in Recommendation #16.
Recommendation #2: Adapt LCRI text to
add to AACR2 rule 26.2A2 to give more guidance and thus more
consistency internationally. The recommended additional text
is shown below in double underscore.
26.2A2. Different forms of the name. Refer from a form of name
used by a person, or found in reference sources, or resulting from
a different romanization of the name, if it differs significantly
from the form used in the heading for that person. Always make
a reference from each variant that affects the primary elements of
the name. For the normal, inverted heading this means variations
in all elements to the left of the comma and in the first element
to the right of the comma Use judgement in making references from
other variants(i.e., those that do not affect the primary entry
elements) when it is judged the access to the catalog would be
improved, e.g., when the heading is a common-sounding name.
Typical instances are:
[Additional examples of references for a common name]
Williams, Bruce Robbins
see Williams, Bruce
But NOT:
Westgate, Lewis G. (Lewis Gardner)
see Westgate, Lewis Gardner
Rationale: The Group thought that LC's specification of what constitutes
a significant variation should be proposed as a change to AACR. Adding
such text and examples would lead to a higher level of consistency within
the broader AACR constituency. In addition, the Group asserts that by
the addition of the examples above, clearer direction is given for decision-making
about when references should be made that do not affect the primary entry
elements. Recommendation #7 is related to this action; it recommends
striking the parallel text from the LCRI.
Recommendation #3: Delete AACR2 rule 26.2B (including
all subrules: 26.2B1; 26.2B2; 26.2B3; 26.2B4).
26.2B. Name-title references
26.2B1.
If the works of a person are entered under two or more different
headings, make a name-title reference when the name appearing
in a particular edition of a work is not the name used as the
heading for that work.
Ashe, Gordon
Croaker
see Creasey, John
(Title page reads: The croaker / John Creasey as
Gordon Ashe)
Halliday, Michael
Edge of terror
see York, Jeremy
(Title page reads: The edge of terror / by Michael
Halliday. A later edition published under the name Jeremy York)
26.2B2.
Make a name-title reference from the inverted form of
initials entered in direct order for each work entered under
those initials.
[Examples omitted here to save space]
26.2B3.
When two or more persons have used the same pseudonym and
one or more is entered under another name, make a name-title
reference from the pseudonym for each work of a person that is
so entered.
[Examples omitted here to save space]
26.2B4.
If a pseudonym consists of initials, a sequence of letters, or
numerals, make a name-title reference from the real name for
each item entered under the pseudonym.
[Examples omitted here to save space]
In addition, if the initials, etc., stand for a phrase other
than a name, make a name-title reference from the phrase in
direct order for each item entered under the pseudonym.
[Examples omitted here to save space]
Rationale: This section on Name-title references was a great mystery
to the Task Group members. None of us knew of any instances of these
rules being applied in the manner described. We were confused about
its existence in the "Personal names" section of this chapter, and
why it existed independently of 26.4 (uniform titles). This section
consistently has examples showing a name-title reference pointing to
a name heading (not a name-title heading). In current LC and NACO practice,
name-title references refer to name-title headings; there is parallel
construction. The Task Group agrees that this section of AACR is misleading,
and recommends that the language be deleted.
26.2B1 is already covered by the first examples in 26.2A1;
26.2B2 is already covered by examples in 26.2A3;
26.2B3 is already covered by the first examples in 26.2A1;
26.2B4 is already covered by the second example in 26.2A2.
We note that there is good information contained in the LCRIs for
26.2B2, 26.2B3, and 26.2B4, but that the interpretation given there
is for name headings and references, not name-titles. Is this perhaps
what the AACR2 authors intended? See Recommendation #12 for our ideas
on moving the RI text should this rule deletion proposal go forward.
Recommendation #4: Add LCRI text to AACR2 rule
26.3A6 regarding written-out abbreviations, including special symbols.
Recommended deletions are shown below as strike-through text; additional
text is shown in double underscore.
26.3A6. Abbreviations, including symbols
If, in the catalogue, abbreviated words are filed differently
from words written in full and if the heading begins with
an abbreviated word or contains an abbreviated word
in such a position that it affects the filing of the heading,
refer from the form of the heading with the abbreviated
word written in full in the language of the heading. If the heading
contains an ampersand or other symbol representing the word "and"
(e.g., the plus sign (+)), make a reference from the name using the
word "and" or its equivalent in the language of the heading.
Rationale: Content from the LCRI regarding the ampersand (or other symbol)
logically belongs in the rules. This topic is not addressed in AACR2
at present. Removing the concerns about where in the heading the ampersand/abbreviation
falls in the heading simplifies heading construction for catalogers.
We doubt there would be many problems created as a result of liberalizing
this rule.
Recommendation #5: Restrict the circumstances
in AACR2 rule 26.4B4 for making references from titles proper to collective
titles. Suggested wording and examples are given below in double underscore.
26.4B4. Collective titles.
When a collection of, or a selection from, a person's works is
catalogued under a collective uniform title, refer from the name
and title taken from the chief source of information or found in
a reference source to the name and collective title unless the
title taken from the chief source of information or found
in a reference source is the same as, or very similar to,
the collective title when that name-title might reasonably
be sought by the catalogue user.
[Additional examples;]
Bach, Johann Sebastian
Musique de chambre
see Bach, Johann Sebastian
Instrumental music. Selections
BUT NOT:
Bach, Johann Sebastian
Kremer plays Bach
see Bach, Johann Sebastian
Instrumental music. Selections
Rationale: The music community has described ongoing difficulties
with this rule, and the Task Group thought that more latitude and some
additional examples would help resolve problems for that community.
We recommend that this particular provision be discussed with the Music
Library Association before final action is taken. This problem could
also be examined in relation to Recommendation C from the section "Ideas
for other groups to pursue:" form a group to explore further the issues
surrounding references from translated titles.
References from specific, published titles to a collective uniform
title are problematic. The contents of the published entities that
fall under collective uniform titles often differ, making them much
less interchangeable than editions or versions of a single work. Each
catalog will have its own mix of specific titles under a collective
uniform title, making it likely that references based on one collection's
holdings will be misleading for users of another collection's holdings.
Given that specific titles held can be searched separately in each
system, it would be better to drop such references altogether from
shared authorities, but the Task Group has stopped short of making
such a recommendation. At this time, we think that giving catalogers
more latitude in determining whether a specific title proper should
be made as a shared reference is an appropriate first step. Rather
than try to incorporate the concept of "shared authorities" into AACR,
we suggest the language above, so that catalogers will feel less compelled
than they do presently to add specific titles proper to name authority
records.
Another option, not favored within the Task Group, was that additional
qualifiers could be added to uniform titles headings under LCRI 25.8-25.11
to break these large authority records into more precise separate records.
The point of the concerns is not that uniform titles should be distinguishing
more finely between the editions they represent. The utility of these
titles lies more in collocating entries under the generalized (collective)
heading. The concern of the Task Group is that inappropriate, edition-specific
references are automatically integrated into local catalogs where those
editions are not held, resulting in unnecessary clutter for users.
The root problem here is the need to articulate rules that differentiate
appropriate references for shared authority records and appropriate
references for local needs.
- Rule interpretations
Recommendation #6: Form a new group to re-evaluate
and re- write the LCRI for Chapter 26, particularly the section on
Linking References, to expand the definition of linking references
and the circumstances under which linking references can be made.
26 References
Linking References
References need not be made from the form used in pre-1981
cataloging to the form used under AACR 2. Such references
may be made, however, if judged useful by the cataloger or
for specified projects. Although no longer routinely made,
linking references are retained in existing authority records
Rationale: While much of the text in this section has historical value
and should be preserved (perhaps in a separate document), it needs to
be updated to the current cataloging context.
The Task Group thinks that it is time to take a fresh look at linking
references, specifically at their utility in automated authority processing.
A re-examination of linking references, both for former headings
and for variant headings in large files, raises the issue of the purposes
for which references are created. The Task Group recognized several
inherent purposes. References provide redirection and information for
users. References link variant forms of the name of an individual or
a body for identification purposes. References are also made to facilitate
automated heading checking and cleanup. It is this last function that
the Task Group is focusing on in this recommendation.
Libraries continue to have to deal with batch loaded records, external
retrospective conversion services, old cataloging copy, and in the
not-too distant future linking to and displaying records from external
databases which may use different forms of headings. Increasingly,
libraries will also need automated assistance for handling massive
changes to legacy data. While the Task Group acknowledges the problems
with "loading up" authority records with publicly-suppressed references
that contain minor or perhaps even trivial variations, the authority
file structure is the only extant mechanism we have to deal with these
problems.
The Task Group agrees that adding such references runs counter to
calls for simplicity--authority records would become both more complex
and more dense. Such records, however, would facilitate more machine
manipulation and less human intervention in record correction and maintenance.
The Group believes that, on analysis, the benefits outweigh the cost.
A specific technique for adding these references needs to be explored
further. Some members of the Task Group thought that with some tweaking
the existing conventions of $w/2 might be suitable for these purposes.
Other members of the Task Group argued for a new specifically-designed
field that could also, like $w/2 of the old linking references, separate
the function of file maintenance from that of user access and display.
The potential use of the 7xx fields, and their relationship to maintenance
needs, also should be examined.
Another valid question that needs to be explored further is how the
addition of maintenance-type linking references should be implemented
in a shared authorities environment. What references are appropriate
for the shared file, and what should be created and maintained locally?
How can we be assured that libraries will exercise this discretion
in adding references to national-level authority records?
Because of the complexity of these questions and the potential far-
reaching impact, the Task Group recommends that another group be charged
to examine this issue. We recognize the tension between LC's creation
of the Rule Interpretations as a document governing their internal
cataloging policy and its use as a standard that is followed by other
libraries. We therefore suggest that a joint group with LC CPSO representation
as well as from other libraries be formed with the assignment of crafting
language to reflect the needs of all stakeholders.
Recommendation #7: Delete part of LCRI 26.2
in conjunction with moving that text into AACR2 Recommendation #2).
26.2. NAMES OF PERSONS
Referring from Variant Forms
2) Trace a reference from each variant that affects the
primary elements of the name. For the normal, inverted heading
this means variations in all elements to the left of the comma
and in the first element to the right of the comma. Do not trace
a reference that would normalize to the same form as the heading
on the same record or to the same form as the heading on another
record.
3) Refer from other variants (i.e., those that do not affect
the primary entry elements) when it is judged the access to
the catalog would be improved, e.g., when the heading
is a common-sounding name.
100 Freeman, Robert, 1948-
670 His Hidden treasure, 1980: t.p. (Robert Freeman)
670 Phone call to author, 3/31/82 (Robert Eliot Freeman;
b. 6/18/48)
(No references)
100 Jenkins, Barbara
670 Jenkins, P. The walk west, 1981: CIP t.p. (Barbara
Jenkins) CIP data sheet (Barbara Jo Pennell Jenkins)
(No references)
Rationale: Recommendation #2 transfers this wording to AACR2. It
should be stricken from this LCRI, and the subsequent numbers within
the RI should be renumbered. The first two examples in the RI should
also be deleted because they contradict the proposed rule (common-sounding
names).
Recommendation #8: Remove the exception in LCRI
26.2, Referring from Variant Forms, point (4) for German, Dutch, and
related languages. The recommended deletion is shown below as strike-through
text.
26.2 Names of Persons
Referring from Variant Forms
[text omitted]
4) Make one reference from each possible entry element of the
name chosen as the heading, including each separate particle or
prefix but excluding connectives such as "y" and "und." (In this
connection, ignore the "Bure" example on p. 545 of AACR 2; this
is based on actual usage, not an arbitrary permutation of the
heading.) Exception: In German, Dutch, and related languages,
do not refer from the definite article following a prefix.
Rationale: This situation is encountered infrequently by generalist
catalogers, making the exception difficult to remember. More persuasively,
however, the group felt that users do not understand the conventions
for what gets indexed for specific languages, and might search under
these forms. This is particularly true in the more global environment,
where users might be searching catalogs not in their native language.
A question was raised: if"Mac" or "Mc" appeared as a separate word
in a heading, would a reference beginning with the following word be
created? If the goal indeed is to make authority records work better
in a global environment, where users might be searching catalogs not
in their native language, then the Task Group thinks that such a reference
would in fact be made. This concept may argue for further revision
of the above RI (to eliminate the exception for "y" and "und," but
the Task Group stopped short of going quite that far.
Recommendation #9: Remove the exception in LCRI
26.2, special considerations, point (3) for Hebrew names. The recommended
deletion is shown below as strike-through text.
26.2 Names of Persons.
Special Considerations
3) When a Hebrew surname begins with 'Ben-,' do not make
a reference from the surname element that follows.
Rationale: This situation is encountered infrequently, and as such creates
a problem for general catalogers. More persuasively, however, the group
felt that users do not understand the conventions for what elements are
indexed for specific languages, and might search under these forms. This
is particularly true in the more global environment, where users might
be searching catalogs not in their native language. One member of the
Task Group pointed out that similar linguistic inconsistencies are found
elsewhere, and cited the example of the form "Neto" in Portuguese names,
which is conceptually akin to referring from "Jr." in an English name.
A Judaica cataloger in touch with a member of the group also pointed
out that the rules make no parallel exceptions for names containing "Bar" (son
of) or "Bat" (daughter of). Removing this restriction would resolve these
linguistic inconsistencies. The Task Group recommends further consultation
with Judaica catalogers (possibly via the NACO Hebraica funnel), recognizing
that their special expertise will provide a very different picture than
that of a generalist cataloger.
Recommendation #10: Add a new instruction
to LCRI 26.2 to prefer forms corresponding to usage over forms
corresponding to qualifiers in constructing references. New
language is suggested below in double underscore.
Referring from Variant Forms
6) In constructing references, prefer forms corresponding
to usage over forms corresponding to qualifiers.
100 1 Mills, R. A. $q (Rachel A.)
400 1 Mills, Rachel
670 [title]: $b t.p. (R.A. Mills) pref. (Rachel
Mills)
NOT
400 1 Mills, Rachel A.
Note that if another Rachel Mills were already established in
the authority file, the form of the cross reference in the
above example would then become
400 1 Mills, Rachel $q (Rachel A.)
Rationale: It was brought to the group's attention that this policy has
not been made clear either at LC or at the British Library, and that
these groups have informally agreed upon the above instruction in the
course of harmonization talks. The Group suggests that this decision
be recorded.
Recommendation #11: Add a new section to LCRI
26.2 regarding the handling of variant dates. New language is suggested
below in double underscore.
4) When variant birth or death dates which are in widespread
use are evident and have been used in a heading in another
large file, construct a linking reference to include the
variant date(s), coded not to display to the public.
100 0 John, of Rodington, ca. 1290-1348?
400 0 Joannes Rodingtonus, d. 1348 $w nnoa
(NUC pre-56 form)
Rationale: This topic was raised on PCC-L in July 1998, and it was evident
from the discussion that there are conflicting concerns about handling
this information. Catalogers want to have this information included in
the record in a form that is useful for automated database maintenance,
yet such references would probably be confusing to users in a public
display. The current practice of recording such information in a 670
field is not satisfactory for automated maintenance.
The Task Group noted that catalogers should not make references from
all the variant dates found in sources; for some historical figures
this could easily get out of hand. Therefore we suggest wording for
the LCRI ("dates which are in widespread use") to provide boundaries
for this practice.
This issue is related to Recommendation #6. If this recommendation
is not acceptable as LC practice, additional wording as "LC/NACO practice" should
be considered here to allow NACO libraries the latitude to incorporate
such references.
Recommendation #12: Move LCRI 26.2B2, 26.3B3,
and 26.2B4 (pending the recommended deletion of AACR2 rule 26.2B) to
LCRI 26.2. Some of the text needs to be revised slightly so that the
mention of name-title references is removed. This recommendation is
related to Recommendation #3, which would delete corresponding rule
26.2B.
26.2B2.
If a personal name heading consists entirely of initials,
make a reference from the inverted form alone(not a name-title
reference) beginning with the last initial. If the heading
contains the full form of the name for which the initials stand
as a parenthetical addition (cf. 22.18A), add the parenthetical
addition to the reference as well. (Do not invert the names
used in the addition.)
100 X Y Z
400 Z, X Y
100 H. D. (Hilda Doolittle), 1886-1961
400 D., H. (Hilda Doolittle), 1886-1961
26.2B3.
When two or more persons have used the same pseudonym and
and one or more is entered under another name, make references
to the names alone, not name-title references. from
the pseudonym to the established names.
100 Enriquez, Colin MetcalfC. M.
$q (Colin Metcalf),$d 1884-
400 Theophilus, $d 1884-
100 Dickinson, Jonathan, $d 1688-1747
400 Theophilus, $d 1688-1747
26.2B4.
If a heading consists of initials, a sequence of letters,
or numerals, make a reference from the person's real name
alone, not a name-title reference. in inverted order.
100 H. D. (Hilda Doolittle), 1886-1961
400 Doolittle, Hilda, 1886-1961
If the initials used in the heading stand for a phrase
other than a personal name, make a reference from the phrase
alone(indirect order), not a name-title reference.
Rationale: This is useful information that should be kept in the LCRIs.
It could be incorporated to the text and examples in LCRI 26.2, either
in the section entitled "Referring from Variant Forms" or "Special Considerations."
Recommendation #13: Revise part of LCRI
26.2C to clarify and broaden applicability of see also references
from individuals to the group for NACO libraries.
26.2C. "See also" References
See Also References from Individuals to the Group
When the name of a group contains the name of one or more
of its members, make a see also reference from the heading
for each person to the heading for the group (but not
from the group to the person).
LC/NACO practice: NACO libraries may make such
references for any group which contains the name of one
or more of its members. The Library of Congress is
limiting this practice to collections of special materials
(in lieu of making multiple added entries on individual
bibliographic records) and to music performing groups,
when the information is readily available and cataloging
resources permit.
Note: Before 1995, references were also made from the group
to the person. Do not delete such existing references.
Rationale: Several members of the Task Group agreed strongly
that this note regarding LC practice must be revised to clarify
the difference between NACO practice and LC practice. We have
heard a need in some cataloging communities that they would
like to apply this RI in other circumstances (e.g., architectural
firms) but will not do so now because the statement above,
although clearly labeled as "LC practice," is interpreted to
mean "LC/NACO practice."
One Task Group member thought that the parentheses in the
last sentence of the LCRI above should also be deleted and
replaced with the words "and vice versa" so that the see also
references could be bi-directional. As another recommendation
suggests that bi- directional references be made for heads
of state, adopting this suggestion for bi-directional references
would promote internal consistency. However, others on the
Task Group disagreed, thinking that the workload of adding
personal name "see alsos" to every group heading would be prohibitive
and not sufficiently beneficial to offset the cost. Concerns
about corporate body name changes as they relate to personal
names also add complexity in decision-making, and add weight
to the argument not to make these references bi- directional.
Recommendation #14: Rewrite LCRI 26.3A3,
References from Inverted Names of Government Subheadings (including
changing this caption), to allow greater cataloger discretion
to construct alternate direct order forms and to cover a parallel,
currently unaddressed situation. Suggested changes are shown
below in double underscore, following the strike-through text
that shows the current version.
26.3A3. Different forms of the name
References from Inverted Names of Government Subheadings
References from Generic Terms and Keywords in Names
of Subordinate Bodies
1) Make an inverted a reference(under jurisdiction)
from the generic term in the name that indicates the
type of agency (e.g., dept., board, committee) when
this term is preceded by a word or words that may
not be recognized as part of the name.
110 Michigan. State Dept. of Education
410 Michigan. Dept. of Education, State
410 Michigan. Dept. of Education
2) Make an inverted a reference (under jurisdiction)
from the first key word in the name and from the key
word of an English form of name of an agency entered
in a foreign language(regardless of the grammar of the
language involved).followed by an indication of
level in the hierarchy. If these two elements can be
combined grammatically in the reference, construct a
"made up" reference; if not (as may be the case in
languages other than English), make the reference
a simple inversion.
110 India. Ministry of Health
410 India. Health, Ministry of
410 India. Health Ministry
110 Spain. Subdirección General de Archivos
410 Spain. Archivos, Subdirección General de
110 Rockville (Md.). Dept. of Planning
410 Rockville (Md.). Planning, Dept. of
410 Rockville (Md.). Planning Dept.
Make such inverted references only for headings
entered directly under the jurisdiction.
Do not make the inverted references if the
government body is entered under its own
name rather than as a subheading of the jurisdiction.
3) When the name of a subordinate body begins with
a keyword, make a reference from the name of the
subordinate body beginning with the term in the name that
indicates the type of agency if such a form is readily
apparent. If the form the reference should take is
unclear, do not make the reference.
110 Chester County (Pa.). Health Dept.
410 Chester County (Pa.). Dept. of Health
Rationale: Subbody references could be made clearer in public displays,
and would be less artificial (and confusing) by allowing more cataloger
judgement to drop and/or rearrange terms in this circumstance. (The Task
Group recognizes that straightforward inversions are sometimes simpler
for cataloger to formulate, however, our primary concern here is a sensible
display for the user.) One Task Group member commented that Forms like "Dept.
of Education" and "Education Dept." were such common grammatical variants
in English as to be interchangeable. This applies whether these are government
subheadings or departments of universities. If the established form of
a heading contains such a phrase, shouldn't we automatically be able
to make a reference from the other form without justification? There
was also general agreement that government subheadings should not be
treated any differently than subheadings for other corporate bodies.
There are concerns about this approach. Foremost among them
are the grammatical problems caused for languages other than
English. The Group has suggested language above to deal with
that situation. Also of concern is that, under this technique,
true variants will be obscured. There may also be more conflicts
with earlier/later forms of name. The Group recognizes the
validity of these concerns.
One Task Group member thought that this entire section of
the LCRI should be deleted, and stated that this part of the
RI has extrapolated AACR2 and obscured its original meaning,
resulting in some odd-looking references.
The Task Group had quite a discussion about inverted references,
both for this LCRI and for other parts of the rules (e.g.,
AACR2 26.3A3). For this RI, we elected to do away with the
concept and terminology of "inversion" but in other parts of
the rules the direction was less clear. In general, the Task
Group could not come to consensus on the way such references
should be formulated. There did seem to be general agreement
that the goal of these references is variant entry under a
different name element. Some thought inversions should be formulated
in an alternate form rather than a simple inversion; others
thought that the inversion should not be a "made up" form.
The Group also recognized that this RI also contains instructions
for the inversion of conference name headings. We felt conferences
were different, and that inversion in that circumstance was
more "user friendly" and thus acceptable.
Recommendation #15: Delete LCRI 26.3A6
(pending the recommended transfer of wording to AACR2 rules
26.3A6).
26.3A6. Abbreviations.
If the name used in the heading contains an ampersand or
other symbol representing the word 'and' (e.g., the plus
sign (+)), make a reference from the name using the word
'and' or its equivalent in the language of the heading
whenever the symbol occurs within the first five words
of the heading. Make a reference from the full form
of other abbreviations only if the abbreviation 1) occurs
within the first five words of the headings, 2) is not
listed in Appendix B, and 3) does not represent a
proper name.
Rationale: This action is proposed in conjunction with Recommendation
#4 above. Content from the LCRI regarding the ampersand (or other symbol)
logically belongs in the rules. In addition, the Group advocates removing
the restrictions upon the location within the heading/reference of the
abbreviation/ampersand in the interest of simplicity. We doubt that there
will be significant impact or workload in liberalizing this rule.
Recommendation #16: Clarify and expand LCRI 26.3B-C
(See also references and Explanatory references) to guide catalogers
to make see also references for heads of state (etc.) bi-directional
(from official name to personal name, and from personal name to official
name). This recommendation is related to Recommendation #1, which adds
a relevant sentence to AACR2 rule 21.4D1.
26.3B-C. See also references and Explanatory references
Explanatory References
2) Private communications of heads of state, etc.
Connect headings for heads of state, ecclesiastical
officials etc., to the corresponding official heading
with see also references instead of the explanatory
reference called for in 21.4D2 and illustrated in
26.3C1. Make see also references both on the
personal heading authority record and on the
official heading authority record.
authority record
100 Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, Shah of Iran, 1919-
510 Iran. Shah (1941-1979 : Mohammed Reza Pahlavi)
($w, position 1 = n)
AND
authority record
110 Iran. Shah (1941-1979: Mohammed Reza Pahlavi)
500 Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, Shah of Iran, 1919-
($w, position 1 = n)
resulting reference
Iran. Shah (1941-1979 : Mohammed Reza Pahlavi)
search also under
Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, Shah of Iran, 1919-
Use the following guidelines to determine when to make
the references:
a) If the official heading is one established
without names or dates (24.20C-E), do not
trace the reference.
b) If the official heading has been established,
make the see also reference.
c) If the official heading has not been
established,establish it and make the see also
reference from it to thepersonal heading only
if the item being cataloged is not clearly
the work of private authorship.
Rationale: The Group noted that AACR2 mandates an explanatory reference
in 21.4D2, 24.20B2 and 26.3C1 from the personal name to the official
name. In practice, and as interpreted by LCRI, catalogers construct
simple see also references. The Task Group is comfortable leaving AACR2
as written to enable libraries which can create explanatory references
to do so. However, the Group would like to see the LCRI rewritten so
the "bi-directionality" of the see also references is made clearer.
For the sake of consistency and simplicity, these see also references
need to go both from official name to personal name, and from personal
name to official name. We understand that at one time, NACO libraries
made these references in both directions; before and after this time
the reference were made only from the corporate to the personal heading.
Records in the NAF today reflect this vacillation, which is confusing
both to catalogers and to end users.
The Task Group also noted that AACR2 rule 21.4D1 affects this situation,
as it instructs catalogers to make added entries for personal names
in various situations. A change to that rule is recommended in Recommendation
#1. The Group thought that, regardless of the bibliographic records
that utilize either the personal name or the official name headings,
it is important conceptually to communicate to users the relationship
between these two headings from both the personal name and from the
official name. It is perhaps even more important to provide the user
with the official name as a see also reference from the personal name,
because of the complex structure of that official form of name.
The group also notes that some of the language in the earlier part
of this same RI may no longer be necessary, and some streamlining is
in order. For example, the "resulting references" examples, which follow
tagged examples, are redundant and are probably no longer necessary.
Recommendation #17: Rescind the practice described
in LCRI 26.5 of adding date qualifiers to all references to uniform
titles headings of the form "[Name]. Works ", "[Name]. Selections ",
and "Bible "
26.5A. Series
Types of See References
1) Alternative forms not selected as series heading
c) Heading is name/uniform title
a. Give a reference from title proper.
100 1# $a James, Henry, $d 1811-1882.
$t Selections. $f 1983
430 #0 $a Selected works of Henry James, Sr.
$f 1983
100 1# $a Sterne, Laurence, $d 1713-1768.
$t Works. $f 1978
430 #0 $a Florida edition of the works of
Laurence Sterne. $f 1978
b. Give a reference from name/title proper when the
title proper differs from the uniform title except
when the difference is the addition of a language
name, a date, or a parenthetical qualifier.
100 1# $a James, Henry, $d 1811-1882.
$t Selections. $f 1983
430 #0 $a Selected works of Henry James, Sr.
$f 1983
400 1# $a James, Henry, $d 1811-1882. $t Selected
works of Henry James, Sr. $f 1983
100 1# $a Sterne, Laurence, $d 1713-1768.
$t Works. $f 1978
430 #0 $a Florida edition of the works of
Laurence Sterne. $f 1978
400 1# $a Sterne, Laurence, $d 1713-1768.
$t Florida edition of the works of Laurence Sterne.
$f 1978
Rationale: Current LC practice when constructing references to the
collective uniform titles "Works" and "Selections" and to Bible headings
is to include the subfield f date required in the heading in each of
the references. The rule apparently being followed is LCRI 26.1, "construct
a reference in the same form in which it would be constructed if chosen
as the heading." A specific instruction regarding the addition of dates
in these references has not been found; however, examples of the practice
are included in LCRI 26.5, and in many examples from the LCNAF (e.g.,
n81135121; n87883625; n95075432; no97045342).
The interpretation of the general rule is open to question. A specific
edition title is already different in form from one of the three uniform
titles notes above, and if a specific edition title were established,
the rules would not require that the subfield f date be added to it.
Further, the rules already permit the omission of other kinds of heading
qualifiers from references (e.g., the omission of (Firm), and of the
conference name qualifiers in the case of rotated conference name references).
The presence of the date in the heading is by itself sufficient to
differentiate these references in standard index displays if the dates
in the references were dropped:
[Name.] Selected poems
Search under
[Name.] Selections. 1954
[Name.] Selections. 1973
- Presentation to and use by catalogers
Discussions are underway about the potential reorganization of Part
I of AACR2 into an ISBD-based structure rather than the current format-based
structure. Little has been said about the possibility of reorganizing
Part II. The Task Group agreed that, for the moment, we should keep
the present structure of rules and rule interpretations and not recommend
a major Part II reorganization. It is premature to take any action
at this point. We (the PCC) should monitor the developments in this
area. Should the opportunity for reorganization arise, another group
should be formed to examine this issue more closely. We should be
prepared to take advantage of the opportunity large-scale reorganization
would present.
The decision to reorganize this part of the rules should not be
made lightly. On the one hand, it would be very logical to have all
instructions concerning references located in one place, rather than
scattered as they are now throughout chapters 22-26. On the other
hand, though, as catalogers establish headings they might want to
determine potential references at that time; interpolated instructions
about references could give them the appropriate information at the
appropriate time. Further study to identify the most useful approach
needs to be undertaken.
In addition, major reorganization of Part II could offer the opportunity
to incorporate concepts and language into the rules about "shared
authorities." Perhaps the time has come for this notion, mentioned
elsewhere in this report, (as well as shared cataloging) to be formally
recognized.
At the present time, the effort required to independently streamline
and reorganize the rules and corresponding rule interpretations for
access points would not be cost effective. This could be offset somewhat
(efficiencies of scale) if there was a larger movement promoting
broader reorganization. The Task Group was not troubled about leaving
the rules and rule interpretations as they are until a larger initiative
gets underway. While the duplication of content and the elements
of unpredictability as to whether instructions for references are
in chapters 22-25 or chapter 26, are bothersome, the Group does not
see this as an urgent problem that needs to be addressed now. The
Group also agreed that no new "cataloging aid" (in other words, a
tool separate from AACR2 or the LCRIs) should be developed for the
presentation of authority-related information.
-
Ideas for other groups to pursue
- Explicitly allow the creation of a reference
for the "citation form" of a personal name based on cataloger's judgement
without ascertaining usage or providing justification from print sources.
The Task Group would be interested in promoting a broader
discussion of the idea of optionally creating a reference (without
literary warrant or corresponding justification) for the "citation
form" of a personal name (e.g., surname, initials). Typically
on the verso of a scientific publication one will find the
phrase "Cite as"; this almost always gives a citation using
only the author's initials. In other disciplines, scholars
are cited by initials only in footnotes (L.W. Smith). One could
argue that references from such forename initials should be
made as a matter of course, without citing usage.
One member of the Task Group thought that these should be
optional rather than automatic, and expected that they would
be more useful in headings for academic authors than for other
personal name headings. Another Task Group member suggested
that for "common sounding names" (or for files in which the
initial and the name would likely file nearby each other) this
technique would be useful (L.W. Smith), but that it does not
seem necessary for names like J. Schuitema or R. Penkiunas.
One option is to remove the restriction that, in general, forms
that are shorter than the chief source form of a personal name
(e.g., Larry W. Smith on t.p., vs. Smith, L.W. in the bibliography)
are not cited or referred from. Rather than craft specific
language at this point, the Group thought broader discussion
was warranted to ascertain interest, impetus, and consensus.
-
Implement "spell-checker" functionality in
library OPACs.
The Task Group felt that the library community needs to mobilize
to systematically lobby OPAC vendors for basic spell-checker functionality
within name (and perhaps title?) indexes. There are kinds of variants
(misspellings, etc.) which many users would benefit from if their failed
searches could be matched against a file of such variants. Librarians
and system designers should consider ways of standardizing, building,
sharing, and maintaining such files, separate from the formal authority
record, and incorporating them into machine-mediated "search helper" functions,
separate from the formal OPAC index display. Examples might include
such entries as:
Smith see also Smyth
Alan see also Allen
McLean see also MacLean
Department see also Dept.
This is not data that we think should be coded into individual authority
records (unless, of course, usage warrants), but on a more general level
could be quite helpful if built into our online systems.
-
Form a group to explore further the issues surrounding
references from translated titles: the monographs approach and the
music approach
Uniform titles (and name-titles) are complex and deserve a separate
task force of their own. The current reference practice is problematic,
and the solution is not obvious. Specifically, the Task Group discussed
the issue of name/title references for monographs being created on
different "parent" records than they are for music materials; each
community apparently interprets rule 26.4B1 differently. (There is
no LCRI for this rule, but there is a MCD.) This is a fundamental discrepancy
in both principle and practice. Examples of the problem may give a
clearer description than written text:
The current rules for monographs dictate:
100 10 Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, $d 1821-1881. $t Prestuplenie
i nakazanie. $l English
400 10 Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, $d 1821-1881. $t Crime and
punishment
The current rules for music dictate:
100 10 Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus, $d 1756-1791. $t Nozze
de Figaro
400 10 Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus, $d 1756-1791. $t Noces
de Figaro
400 10 Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus, $d 1756-1791. $t Hochzeit
des Figaro
400 10 Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus, $d 1756-1791. $t Marriage
of Figaro
The monographs pattern is particularly problematic in subject indexes,
where language-qualified headings are rarely used, and accordingly
references to foreign language titles from familiar English titles
are disallowed. Also, embedded in this problem are the issues of "work" versus "edition" or "printing," which
the Task Group thought were out of its jurisdiction. Nevertheless,
the Group did want to draw attention to the problem and to the need
for more in-depth analysis and problem solving. It is our hope that
another group will be assigned to look more deeply into the issues
surrounding uniform title and name-title references, in the name, title,
and subject indexes.
The Group noted that the JSC has charged LC to write a discussion
paper on uniform title added entries for translations for continuing
resources, but we see a broader need than addressing only continuing
resources. The two groups might want to coordinate their efforts.
-
Monitor further developments to allow the creation
of references in non-Roman scripts.
The Task Group is aware of the work of James Agenbroad and the new
rules (26.1B2 and 26.1C2) regarding non-Roman scripts which are being
proposed to CC:DA. The Group did not have complete consensus, but decided
not to formulate a specific recommendation in this report regarding
references in non-Roman scripts, since this topic is already being
addressed by another group. The prevailing thought of the Task Group
at this time is that these principles are already implicit in the rules
as they currently exist. Nothing in the rules specifically disallows
references in non-Roman scripts, although one member pointed out that
AACR2 assumes a "romanized" environment and doesn't specifically mention
vernacular forms. We are also aware of the work of the MARBI task force
on multilingual characteristics of authority records, and think that
their input will help resolve some of the technical difficulties in
this area.
-
Rejected ideas
-
Using the fullest form of name as the heading
One thought that occurred to a member of the Task Group was that
changing the rules so that the fullest possible form was established
as the form of the heading in an environment of implicit right-hand
truncation would in fact obviate the need for many cross references.
Because there is no standardization between online systems, the benefits
derived from automatic right-hand truncation (which is certainly common
but not universal) cannot at this time be translated into simplification
of cross reference structures. This very radical idea, which would
require rethinking the basic principles of AACR as well as the recoding
of massive amounts of legacy data in both bibliographic and authority
records, was of course instantly rejected.
-
Literary warrant
Arlene Taylor recommends that we rethink our assumption that cross
references should only be made from forms of name that have appeared
in print. Even though the definition of publishing (with the evolution
of the World Wide Web) seems to be broadening, perhaps it is time to
make a radical change and open cross references up to cataloger judgement.
While we may want to impose some restrictions to avoid keying references
for obvious misspellings, guidelines with examples could perhaps be
developed to support a more liberal use of cross references. The Task
Group was not ready to take on this challenge at this time.
One Task Group member strongly supports the principle of describing
the source of the reference in a 670 source citation, even if only
to note that it is a form known by the cataloger to be frequently sought
by users. References on older authority records, from a time when this
principle was not in effect, present problems for catalogers.
-
References with "tiny variations"
26.1H. "Do not make a reference if the reference is so similar to a
heading (name and/or title) or to another reference as to be unnecessary."
The Task Group talked about this rule in the online environment, wondering
if it needed to be changed to accommodate the literalness of computers
in searching for user terminology. The consensus was that we don't
want to make catalogers crazy by forcing them to provide a reference
for every wayward search term. We think there is both enough guidance
and enough flexibility as written for catalogers to be able to adequately
interpret what is appropriate for a given situation. We therefore opted
to leave the wording of this rule alone. This rule was also the impetus
for our proposal regarding "spell checker" functionality in the search
interface of online systems under Section 5 above.
-
The "Inheritance" Problem
The Task Group noted another difficult problem, which we described
as the "inheritance problem." An example is not being able to retrieve "American
Library Association. Council" when searching the form "ALA. Council";
the acronym is not necessarily carried through in the authority record
for each subbody. The Group elected not to recommend a change in practice
allowing such constructions to be routinely added as cross references
in records for subordinate bodies.
-
Language-specific circumstances
In general, the Task Group would like to lessen language-specific
circumstances in the rules. There are fewer decision points for catalogers
and better access for users if references are made from all personal
name elements. If one purpose of references is to generalize access
vocabulary for searchers with different linguistic backgrounds, then
there's no need to specify them for each language. We intended to recommend
to simplify the decision points in AACR2 rule 22.5C1 for references
for complex personal names in various languages, but in the final analysis
decided not to propose the following change in the rules. We thought
that, as stated, the rule was clear enough without the additional wording.
The recommended additional text is shown below in double underscore.
22.5C1. Preliminary rule
The following rules deal with the entry of surnames
consisting of two or more proper names (referred to as
"compound surnames") and names that may or may not
contain compound surnames. Apply the rules in the order
given. Refer from elements of compound surnames not chosen
as the entry element regardless of language.
-
Inverted headings
The Task Group could not come to consensus on the way inverted references
should be formulated. Some thought inversions should be formulated
in an alternate form rather than a simple inversion; some thought that
the inversion should not be a "made up" form. There did seem to be
general agreement that the goal of these references is variant entry
under a different name element. There was also general agreement that
government subheadings should not be treated any differently than subheadings
for other corporate bodies. We discussed the possibility of deleting
several examples in AACR2 rule 26.3A3 but could not reach consensus
in doing so (The Jackson (D.G.) Advertising Service; Jackson Advertising
Service; College of William and Mary). The issue for us for government
bodies was clearer, and resulted in Recommendation #14. So in a sense
this is not a "rejected idea," but rather an idea with which we had
a hard time reaching complete agreement.
-
List of works consulted
Bangalore, Nirmala S. "Authority files in online catalogs revisited." Cataloging & Classification
Quarterly , vol. 20, no. 3 (1995) pp. 75-94.
Jamieson, Alexis J., Elizabeth Dolan, and Luc Declerck. "Keyword searching
vs. authority control in an online catalog." Journal
of Academic Librarianship , vol. 12 (November
1986) pp. 277-283.
Library of Congress. NACO Participants' Manual.
2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, Cataloging Distribution
Service, 1996.
Taylor, Arlene G. "Authority files in online catalogs: an investigation
of their value." Cataloging & Classification Quarterly,
vol. 4, no. 3 (Spring 1984) pp. 1-17.
Thomas, Catherine M. "Authority control in manual versus online catalogs:
an examination of 'see' references." Information
Technology and Libraries, vol. 3, no. 4 (December
1984) pp. 393-398.
Watson, Mark R. and Arlene G. Taylor. "Implications of current reference
structures for authority work in online environments." Information
Technology and Libraries, vol. 6, no. 1 (March
1987) pp. 10-19.
Wilson, Mary Dabney. "Key issues and priorities for authority work in
the online environment." Convergence: Proceedings
of the Second National Conference of the Library and Information Technology
Association, October 2-6, 1988, Boston. Chicago:
American Library Association, 1990, pp. 35-47.
Yee, Martha M. and Sara Shatford Layne. Improving
online public access catalogs. Chicago: American
Library Association, 1998.
Younger, Jennifer A. "After Cutter: Authority control in the twenty-first
century." Library Resources and Technical Services,
vol. 39, no. 2 (April 1995) pp. 133-141.
|
The
Library of Congress
>> Cataloging 
Top
of Page