Raffaella Sprugnoli (ITALY)
My feedback
4 results found
-
73 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
81 votesRaffaella Sprugnoli (ITALY)
supported this idea
·
-
67 votesRaffaella Sprugnoli (ITALY)
shared this idea
·
-
183 votes
Dear community,
The title and description of this idea were updated to better reflect the need. Please let us know if you have comments on this.
Thanks,
Tamar Fuches,
Alma development team
Raffaella Sprugnoli (ITALY)
supported this idea
·
Good morning,
I am conveying the opinion of the ITALE (Italian association of Ex Libris users group) Working Group Cataloguing
standards and integration with the National Library Service-SBN regarding the proposal titled “Alignment
of UNIMARC normalization rules with MARC21 normalization rules for the creation of the author facet”.
We acknowledge the existence of the duplication issue; however, in our view, the proposed solution does
not constitute a significant improvement.
The first concern we raise is that, while the UNIMARC normalization rules for facets take into account all
subfields of the 7XX fields—including elements such as qualifications—the MARC21 proposal, as outlined in
the attached document, suggests limiting the consideration to subfields $a and $b for personal names,
corporate names, and meetings.
This restriction results in a loss of important information and introduces significant ambiguity, especially in
the many cases of homonymy. Authors with identical names are grouped into a single facet, eliminating the
ability to distinguish between them. As a result, the task of disambiguation is entirely transferred to the
user, who—particularly in the case of very common names—is left to reconstruct the correct attribution of
works.
Furthermore, the proposal does not address the duplication and inconsistency issues arising from
differences in authorized forms due to the cataloguing rules of various countries (e.g., the treatment of
ancient Greek and Latin authors). Likewise, it fails to resolve problems related to the use of different
transliteration standards for non-Latin alphabets.
For all the reasons outlined above, the group believes the proposal, in its current form, does not meet the needs of our community.
The only aspect we believe warrants further consideration is the treatment of meeting names. In this case,
the suggested approach of grouping all conferences with the same formal name into a single facet could
prove effective.
The group therefore intends to further investigate this point by analysing a broad set of cases and reserves
the right to share the findings at a later stage.
Finally, the group is convinced that the only real solution for the correct and consistent management of
authors and their grouping in discovery facets lies in the use of unique identifiers, as briefly mentioned in
the French proposal. In this regard, we would find it useful and of great interest to understand whether—
and how—Ex Libris is working towards this goal and, if so, which identifiers are being considered. It would
be important for the Ex Libris user community to be promptly informed about developments in this area, so
they can prepare accordingly and, where possible, adapt and update their cataloguing practices.
Best regards
Raffaella Sprugnoli on behalf of Working Group Cataloguing
standards and integration with the National Library Service-SBN