Scope:

Contact: Rich Murray

Unit: Resource Description

Date last reviewed: 9/22/2022

Date of next review: 09/22/2023

NACO AT DUKE 

Created 2013 by Amy Turner; last revised Oct. 2021 by Rich Murray

Historical Context

Duke joined NACO in 2000. The initial workshop, led by Ana Cristan of LC, had 15 participants. After a few months of review, Duke achieved independence. In 2001, two Duke catalogers attended series NACO training at LC. In 2005, Paul Frank led another NACO workshop with 17 participants. In 2006 Judy Kuhagan and Melanie Polutta led series NACO training for 11 Duke participants and 9 from UNC. After the first workshop, review was done in-house. We have hired one cataloger trained at another institution, and have done several in-house NACO workshops, including "bridge" training from AACR2 to RDA.

Training 

In general, LC does not send trainers out to do NACO training anymore, nor do they host in-person workshops at LC. Once a year, usually in September, LC presents on online NACO training workshop. Catalogers who have not been through NACO training, but have demonstrated mastery of RDA, especially chapters 8-11 and 16, may be eligible to "attend" the virtual training if their supervisor and the Principal Cataloger agree they are ready. The ultimate assessment and decision is made by the Principal Cataloger. The PCC recommends that about 30 records per individual be reviewed in the three months following training. This is just a rule of thumb.  The actual number will vary depending on many factors, including the experience and learning style of the individual, the difficulty of the records being created, and the progress made by the individual.

The order in which NACO independence is obtained is: personal names; corporate bodies; geographic headings. Many catalogers do not ever encounter enough corporate bodies or geographic headings that need establishing to become independent for these headings. NACO catalogers, even those who have been declared independent for one or more categories of headings, should always feel free to consult with the Principal Cataloger (currently Rich Murray), the Backup NACO Liaison (currently Jessica Janecki), or another NACO-trained colleague if they are unsure about a record.

NACO training is considered by many to be the final and most intellectually rigorous step in a cataloger's training. It can only be undertaken after a cataloger has demonstrated absolute mastery of bibliographic records, particularly choosing and correctly forming access points. A cataloger cannot begin NACO training until they are totally independent (off review) in all other aspects of their cataloging work.

Local policies and advice 

Although NACO work is strongly encouraged in general, the decision of whether to create or change any given record is entirely up to individual discretion. Contributions to the authority file obviously help with the ongoing work of cataloging, both locally and internationally, and help MARCIVE keep our catalog consistent. Remember, though, having no authority record to back a heading at all will cause fewer problems than an incorrectly constructed authority record will. In general, independent NACO catalogers should operate under a philosophy of, "Create an authority record if there isn't already one unless there is a compelling reason not to." "Compelling reasons not to" may include lack of language expertise; inability to confidently untangle a group of entities with the same or similar names; and "the research involved would just take way more time than it is worth." Use that last one judiciously.

The 3XX RDA fields were clearly identified in the “bridge” NACO training as optional, and Duke opted not to include these in basic NACO training, though independent NACO catalogers may choose to use them. More recent training material is more ambiguous about the use of these fields, "encouraging" them in general, but leaving plenty of room for catalogers' judgment. NACO catalogers in Rubenstein Library Collections Services tend to use more 3xx fields than DUL catalogers, and it's fine that our approaches are not identical across the board.

Optionally, we may edit access points on other OCLC records to match new or changed authority records. For many years, OCLC did not allow editing of records not held by the editing library, and they have only limited automated authority control. The resulting inconsistencies can make cleaning up headings feel like trying to empty the ocean with a teacup.  However, some cleanup can be useful to Duke in the future. For example, if you add dates to a personal name lacking them in OCLC, MARCIVE cannot make that sort of change automatically.  However they can catch any variants covered by cross references, and many more that a machine can recognize as variants. Use your judgment, don’t spend too much time on clean-up, and remember that we are not supposed to edit access points on non-English-language-of-cataloging records (040 $b), because they use different authority control systems. 

There are both definite rules and options for recoding pre-RDA records to RDA.  When editing a pre-RDA authority record (for example to add a reference or 670), we are required to recode to RDA. We are not supposed to use a record with the 667 field “THIS 1XX FIELD CANNOT BE USED UNDER RDA UNTIL THIS RECORD HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND/OR UPDATED” for an access point on a BIBCO or CONSER record, and are encouraged to review and update these records as appropriate. If we change a 1XX in an authority record, we need to make that same change in any subordinate authority records (for example, subordinate corporate bodies, uniform titles entered under an author’s name). Remember when you recode an authority record to RDA, you are not just determining whether the heading is constructed correctly following RDA's rules, you are also evaluating usage to see if it has changed enough over the years to suggest a change to the AAP may be in order.

Adding 053 fields to authority records.   

053 headings may be added to name authority records for literary authors. Follow the guidelines in F 632 in the Classification & Shelflisting Manual. Pay particular attention to the types of literary authors for whom you can't just add an 053, but rather have to propose a new class number to be "printed" in the schedules via SACO. These are principally authors born before 1925 and authors who use one or more pseudonyms (regardless of year of birth), though there are also a couple of other types we don't run into very often.

Adding 053s is completely optional. We used to propose them to LC, who would check them against their shelflist and then email us back saying either "OK" or "we have changed it to ________." They don't do this anymore, so we are allowed to add 053s without running them past anyone, coding them as 053 _4 and adding a $5 NcD. If you choose to add an 053, do your best to shelflist against LC and OCLC, but it is often impossible to get things in perfect order, and at this point 053s serve more to collocate works by an author rather than to put authors in alphabetical order on the shelf.

PCC administration & communication

The director of Duke University Libraries votes in yearly elections for PCC policy committees, though in recent years this responsibility has been delegated to the Principal Cataloger. The BIBCO and CONSER coordinators may attend a yearly operations committee meeting.   Any PCC contributors may participate in various committees and task groups, with most work conducted by email.   

The PCC webpage (https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc) is the central source for PCC news, policies, best practices, etc. The following FAQs are especially recommended: 

• Personal Name NARs
• LC/PCC RDA and AACR2 Practice for Creating NARs for Persons Who Use Pseudonyms
• Corporate Name NARs
• 670 field

The PCC listserv is used for distributing news, and to ask questions about cataloging policy and practice. Subscription information and archives can be found at: 

https://www.lsoft.com/scripts/wl.exe?SL1=PCCLIST&H=LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

We are discouraged from asking questions of individual LC staff members. The PCCLIST is the usual way to ask questions, and most communication with LC is through the email address naco@loc.gov.  Specific examples are found in the section below.

Communication with LC (including deletion of authority records and BFM)

 Correcting and deleting authority records.

We can make routine changes to authority records, such as correcting typos and upgrading to RDA without consultation. In case of doubt about whether a record is in error or what should be done, consult with the Principal Cataloger or the Backup NACO Liaison, who may write to one of the addresses above.

Only LC can delete authority records. This is most often done because of duplication. Duplicates with identical 100 fields are automatically found by OCLC and reported to LC. If the same entity has been established under different authorized access points, PCC members report the duplication to naco@loc.gov.

Before writing to LC, decide which of the two records should be retained. Often it is a toss up, with slight variations based on the information at hand. Make a quick determination of which record is “better.” In case of doubt, choose the older record. Move any important information (670s, references) from the record not chosen. Then send a brief email. You may use the formula:

   “Please delete n 2012444597100 in favor of no 2013414556”

Or, you may copy the records into the email, indicating which is to be deleted and which retained.

If LC has headings in their catalog under the form in the AR to be deleted, inform them of the need for BFM. Give the LCCNs of the relevant records. The guidelines for what is considered reportable BFM and what is non-reportable are somewhat complicated, but consult https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/naco/bfmguide.html and do your best to follow it. If in doubt, report the BFM.

 Differentiating undifferentiated headings 

 1) When finding information to distinguish an entity within an authority record for an undifferentiated personal name (008/32 = b), always create a new NAR for the new heading.  By definition the new NAR will have a new LCCN.

2) Add a 667 note on the new NAR: “Formerly on undifferentiated name record:” with the LCCN of the non-unique NAR that the person was previously covered by. The  hope is that the specific identification of the former record will assist in maintenance tasks related to untangling undifferentiated records.

3) Never change a 1XX on an authority record that is coded as an undifferentiated personal name, unless the change would be appropriate to all persons covered by the record.  This will help prevent unwanted heading changes.

4) Move the 670s that pertain to the new NAR from the undifferentiated name record to the new NAR.

5) If required, report BFM.  

6) If there is only one identity left on an undifferentiated NAR, follow the instructions below (from the Descriptive Cataloging Manual). 

 Example of new NAR for a formerly undifferentiated name. The last 670 was moved from the undifferentiated record. 

010  no2013047532040

040 NcD ǂb eng ǂe rda ǂc NcD

1001 Koch, Alois, ǂd 1945- 

667  Formerly on undifferentiated name record: n  80000182 

670  Burkhard, Willy. Das Gesicht jesajas, 2012: ǂb label (Alois Koch, Leitung) 

670  Bach cantatas website, May 1, 2013; ǂb (Alois Koch, conductor; b. Aug. 22, 1945, Lucerne) 

670  His Johann Gustav Eduard Stehle (1839-1915) und die katholische Kirchenmusik in der deutschen Schweiz zur Zeit der caecilianischen Reform, 1977: ǂb t.p. (Alois Koch)

 The address for reporting BFM is naco@loc.gov.    When contacting BFM it is helpful to paste the new NAR into the email.   

Send LC a list of LCCNs for bibliographic records to be updated.  

• Send LCCNs, not OCLC record numbers.
  The LCCN is in the 010 field.

SACO 

NACO libraries are automatically members of SACO. There is no training, but there is an extensive manual (SACO Participants Manual in the Catalogers’ Desktop) 

Be aware that because of the “Division of the World” (Subject Headings Manual H 405) things that you might think can be established through NACO must go through SACO instead. Before establishing a type of corporate body you have not established many times before, always check SHM H 405 to make sure it can be established via NACO rather than via a SACO proposal. Often the rules are arcane and seemingly arbitrary, e.g., truck stops are NACO but grain elevators are SACO, so don't guess based on "what would make sense" or because the thing you want to establish seems similar to another thing you have established before.

Because SACO procedures are time consuming (including a wait of six weeks of so for decisions to be made on proposals), Duke does not make many SACO proposals. If you have reason to make one, and are not familiar with the procedure, talk to the Principal Cataloger.