1 of 25

LACONI webinar on Name Authority Records

2 of 25

Presented by

Tricia Mackenzie & Melanie Polutta

Cataloging Policy Specialists

Policy, Training, and Cooperative Programs Division

Library of Congress

3 of 25

NACO Authority records: �Updates to policies;�Updates to NARs

4 of 25

What is the Program for Cooperative �Cataloging?

5 of 25

NACO Policy�Position Statements, Recommendations, and Updates

2021

PCC Policy for Partial Compilations of Works by One Agent

FAQ on Authorized Access Points for Collections of the Works of Individual Agents and Works of Unknown Responsibility that Purport to be by an Individual Agent

2022

PCC Revised Report on Recording Gender in Personal Name Authority Records

2023

LC Announcement: PZ Classification numbers in NACO (field 053)

LC Announcement: Family AAP's for Subject Access Points

PCC Position Statement on Personal Data in Name Authority Records

NACO 024 Best Practices Guidelines

2024

Revised PCC Guidelines for the Application of Relationship Designators in NACO Authority Records

6 of 25

2021-2022 : PCC Best Practices & Revised Report

2021

PCC Policy for Partial Compilations of Works by One Agent

Works after 1500
Other than compilations of musical works, or laws

FAQ on Authorized Access Points for Collections of the Works of Individual Agents and Works of Unknown Responsibility that Purport to be by an Individual Agent

2022

PCC Revised Report on Recording Gender in Personal Name Authority Records

Privacy & safety

6

7 of 25

2023: Announcements, Best Practices, & Position Statement

Library of Congress:

PZ Classification numbers in NACO (field 053)

LC Classification & Shelflisting Manual (CSM)

F 632 (Literary Authors) & F615 (Juvenile Materials)

LC Authorized Access Points for Subject Access points

LC Subject Heading Manual

H 1631 (Genealogy & Family Names)
H1631.5 (Family Names & References)

Program of Cooperative Cataloging

NACO 024 Best Practices Guidelines

Position Statement on Personal Data in Name Authority Records

Personal data varies by context, culture, & country
Balance providing information to users and protecting personal information
Understand that creators may have valid reasons to limit their personal information

7

8 of 25

2024: Revised PCC Guidelines for the Application of Relationship Designators in NACO Authority Records

8

Sequential Relationships for Places

9 of 25

Changes to NARs

Why?
When?
How?

9

10 of 25

Summary: Checklist

You need an access point for a bibliographic record, so:

Search multiple forms of the name

Search both bibliographic and authority databases

Sometimes research is needed to clarify relationships

Remember the 24-hour rule

Don’t overdo it!

11 of 25

Summary: Search Results Govern Workflow

You find an NAR -- Use it!
You find an NAR -- Update it!
You do not find an NAR -- Create a new one!

OCLC Connexion and SkyRiver have authority macros

May 1, 2013

Searching is extremely important. Your good searching will result in your confidence in taking appropriate action:

You search and find a NAR for the entity you need. Great! The authorized access point is based on the preferred name that is used in the resource you have in hand. The cataloger has done an excellent job of adding attributes to the existing authority record. There are no new name usages, and no new attributes, identified in the resource you have in hand. All you need to do is use the authorized access point in the bibliographic record you are creating or reviewing, and you are done.
You search and find a NAR for the entity you need. Great! But in this case, for example, you note that the resource you have in hand has a different usage of the name. Or perhaps you can identify attributes in the resource in hand that might enhance the existing authority record. The authorized access point likely will not need to change, but you would like to update the existing authority record to add variant names or new attributes. Please remember that an existing NACO authority record that is not as “full” as you would like is not a reflection on the cataloger that created it. You can always add to the record.
Your thorough searching results in no authority record for the entity you need. Perfect world! You create a new NACO authority record.

12 of 25

Why Update an Existing NAR ?

To consolidate information when a duplicate NAR will be reported for deletion

To change an existing variant access point to resolve a NACO conflict

To change an existing authorized access point to resolve a NACO conflict

To correct an RDA authorized access point “error of fact”

12

13 of 25

To Consolidate Information in an Existing NAR when a Duplicate NAR Will be Reported for Deletion

13

Keep top one

March 11, 2014

NACO members may encounter duplicate records in the LC/NACO Authority File. A duplicate may be encountered in the process of setting up a new name, or in the process of adding information to an existing authority record. In the case above, the cataloger identified two records for the same person, and following NACO parameters, the cataloger will make a delete request to the Cooperative Programs Section at the Library of Congress. But often there will be information in the record that is to be deleted that would make a useful addition to the retained record.

In the case above, the cataloger who established the authorized access point Salas Fumás, Vicente (n 83012081 ) should have realized that the name was already a variant access point in the record for Salas, Vicente (n 50016598 ). That record n 50016598 should have been used. Instead, there is a duplicate record in the database, but with a different authorized access point.

Either record can be reported for deletion. In this case the cataloger discovered that this person identifies himself on his CV as Salas Fumás, Vicente, indicating that the form with the compound surname is his preferred name. So the cataloger will retain n 83012081, reporting n 50016598 for deletion, even though n 50016598 is the earlier record.

See the next slide for the updated NAR.

14 of 25

To Consolidate Information in an Existing NAR when a Duplicate NAR Will be Reported for Deletion

14

7 March 2019 (updated record view)

What changes were absolutely necessary?

What changes were just really nice to make?

What changes were just not necessary?

What changes should we NOT make?

Here is the updated record to be retained– the 670 fields from the record to be deleted have been moved, and 670 fields for new information have been added. The authorized access point form in the record to be deleted is moved to the record to be retained with coding $w nne (because it was a previously-authorized form. The cataloger added some additional RDA attributes as well. Note that the date of birth was not added to the authorized access point! NACO authorized access points are changed only in a few cases– you have already seen two cases in the preceding examples. However, the cataloger added the date of birth to the variant access points, a practice that is not required but permitted.

Would you report BFM here? (Answer: yes, since a record is being deleted)

15 of 25

To Change an Existing Variant Access Point to Resolve a NACO Conflict

15

7 March 2019 (replaced made-up record)

Which of these two SHOULD get the change?�

Here is a situation in which you may add information to an existing variant access point in order to break a conflict with a new authorized access point being established.

You are establishing the name Kay, Jim, based on the resource Damn the Jews. However, the resource offers you very little in the way of identifying characteristics– no dates, no fuller forms, no occupation (other than Author).

The lack of identifying characteristics is noteworthy because there is a NACO conflict between the authorized access point you are establishing, and a variant access point in another record.

Fortunately, there are more identifying characteristics available in the existing NACO record, and one of those, Photographer, can be used in the variant access point to break the NACO conflict. See the next slide for the updated record.

16 of 25

To Change an Existing Variant Access Point to Resolve a NACO Conflict

16

17 of 25

To Change an Existing Authorized Access Point to Resolve a NACO Conflict

17

May 1, 2013

Often a NACO cataloger may encounter a situation where a new authorized access point being established conflicts with an existing authorized access point, but although there may be no distinguishing characteristics available for the name being established, there might be distinguishing characteristics already in the existing NACO record in conflict. This is similar to the situation we just looked at, although in this case, we are going to have to change an existing authorized access point, even though it does not have an error. Short of making this an undifferentiated name authority record, there is no other solution here, since two different NACO authorized access points cannot normalize to the same form.

In the slide above you see a new authorized access point being established: Lamoreaux, Jeanne, based on the work Neither here nor there. This person’s name may have appeared in a long list of creators or collaborators on the title page, and you want to create a NACO record for each of them. It is very difficult to determine any dates associated with this person, there are no fuller forms of name, and it is very hard to determine a profession or an occupation.

This would not be a problem if there were no conflict, but there is a conflict with an existing established authorized access point with the same preferred name Jeanne Lamoreaux. Note that that record had additional identifying characteristics added based on a publication that was not in print at the time the authority record was created.

We have a 1XX to 1XX conflict, and it must be broken. We can use one of the identifying characteristics from the existing record to break the conflict in that existing record.

18 of 25

To Change an Existing Authorized Access Point to Resolve a NACO Conflict

18

Updated: December 14, 2016

Here is the updated NACO record. The date of birth that was added to the second 670 in the existing record can be used in the authorized access point to break the conflict!

If that date of birth had not been available, we had other options to break this conflict: 1) the fuller form $q (Jeanne M.) or the addition of the profession $c (Architect)

This existing NACO authority record was also enhanced by the addition of new elements, as identified above with the arrows, and an update of the 046 and 373 fields, and recording a controlled form in 375.

This is a 1XX change. Would you report BFM? (Answer: not necessary since the change is a 1:1)

It is a good idea, in fact, a NACO requirement, to search for other authority records that use this name as an element. Those will need to be updated as well. In this case, there may be a work title or an expression title that includes this creator’s name in the authorized access point. You will need to make changes there, too, to assure that the authorized access point is updated to use the revised 1XX form here.

Remember, anytime a change is made to a 1XX– it makes no difference what the change is– you must search to see if any other 1XX authorized access points are affected by the change. Also remember that a 1XX may appear as a 5XX in another authority record. Those 5XXs will need to be updated as well.

19 of 25

19

To Correct an RDA Authorized Access Point “Error of Fact”

7 March 2019 (replaced made up example)

What is an RDA “Error in Fact?” It could be an authorized access point that contains an incorrect date– maybe the cataloger made a typo, or it could be an authorized access point that is no longer based on the preferred name– the original record was based on a form that was never used again, and the person is clearly known now by another form.

This slide illustrates the second situation.

Note that the authorized access point was established based on a thesis. Often the fullest form available is presented on a thesis preferred source. The cataloger who established the authority record did nothing wrong.

Along the way, more publications were cataloged, and at one point the AACR2 record was re-coded to RDA. But did the cataloger who re-coded the record to RDA really evaluate the record? What would you say the commonly-known form of name is now? The authorized access point in this case contains an “Error of Fact” and should be changed.

20 of 25

20

To Correct an RDA Authorized Access Point “Error of Fact”

Module 7. Making Changes to Existing Name and Work/Expression Authority Records

21 of 25

To Change an Authorized Access Point to Close an Open Birth Date

21

7 March 2019 (replaced made-up example)

Because changing an existing authorized access point has an impact on Bibliographic File Maintenance (BFM), there is a long-standing NACO practice to leave an existing authorized access point alone, unless it has an egregious error.

However, there are two exceptions to that practice that NACO members may apply.

When an existing authorized access point for a person has an open birth date, and a death date has been identified, the authorized access point may be updated to include the death date.
When an existing authorized access point for a person has an open death date, and a birth date has been identified, the authorized access point may be updated to include the birth date. This one is new to NACO, since NACO RDA guidelines instruct you to use a hyphen before a death date in all cases, even if a birth date is not in the authorized access point.

Remember, these updates may be made only if there is already an open birth date, or an open death date, in the authorized access point. You cannot add dates to an authorized access point under this exception if there are no dates in the authorized access point to begin with. You can only add a date to an existing authorized access point lacking dates if the date is needed to break a conflict.

The slide shows an existing NACO record for an open birth date. On the next slide, you will see new information has become available.

22 of 25

To Change an Authorized Access Point to Close an Open Birth Date

22

Module 7. Making Changes to Existing Name and Work/Expression Authority Records

7 March 2019 (replaced made-up example)

New information – a death date – has come to light. The NACO cataloger applied the option to add that death date to the existing authorized access point. Note that the cataloter kept the old form in a 400 field coded $w nnea. This is not currently required, as best practices continue to evolve. The cataloger also added some additional information to the NACO record at the same time: 046 death date information, and 370 place of death information, as well as other places associated with Previn. Because in addition to his work as a conductor and composer he created work using English, the cataloger added the language of person element; the cataloger also added a relationship to a musical group he was associated with, the Andre Previn Trio. These are good enhancements to the record.

(We will not look at an example of adding a birth date to an open death date in an authorized access point, but the same principles apply in that situation).

23 of 25

Other reasons to do optional work

23

Show

Show relationships

Evaluate

Evaluate and re-code AACR2-acceptable to RDA

Change/update

Change/update attributes

Add

Add variants

24 of 25

What about undifferentiated NARs?

24

PCC/NACO policy—get rid of undiff NARs when possible

Extract one at a time – OR all at once

667 ## $a Formerly on undifferentiated name record: [LCCN of undifferentiated name record]

If you extract one identity, but multiple identities remain, it is still an undiff NAR

Do NOT continue to re-use old NAR for the single remaining identity—always create new NAR(s) to replace ALL identities on the old undiff NAR

25 of 25

Questions?

???