LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  September 2011

CODE4LIB September 2011

Subject:

Re: [NGC4LIB] Permalink service for authority data now available at LC

From:

Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 7 Sep 2011 17:34:29 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (72 lines)

I would think most users would expect a unique hit, yeah, the 
expectation is generally that a link like that is an 'identifier' 
representing a single record.  That's even kind of implied by the word 
"permalink" to me, my assumption is that a "permalink" is a link to a 
particular record, rather than to "search results".

The most inconvenient case is going to be when there are two (or more) 
hits for a given LCCN, and one of them represents a correct match, and 
one a cancelled/invalid match.   The client software in question may end 
up using the 'wrong' hit.

It's not a problem unless an 010$z on one record has not been re-used as 
an 010$a on a different record.  But it's not entirely clear to me in 
what cases this may occur.

Perhaps the documentation could discuss this issue, and make it clear 
that multiple record can come back from a permalink, and give some 
examples of cases where this might occur, especially cases where an 
010$z on one (or more) record is also an 010$a on one (and only ever 
one, I think? There can't be the same 010$a on two different records can 
there?) record.

On 9/7/2011 5:27 PM, Della Porta, Ann wrote:
> Jonathan,
>
>       When LC first released the LCCN Permalink service in 2008, we considered whether to index the canceled LCCNs -- and decided yes, we needed to provide access to both 010a and 010z.  Here's the rational:  LCCNs are an identifier that dates back to 1898. Most cancelled LCCNs represent a record that was previously distributed by LC's Catalog Distribution Service.
>
>       For bibliographic records, sometimes these older LCCN appeared on printed cards -- and newer versions of the record have been assigned a different LCCN.  LC has to assume that other libraries may have entered these older (and now cancelled) LCCNs into their catalog records in the 010a field.  In other cases, publishers and others print invalid or cancelled LCCNs in their CIP data (sometimes a publisher may apply for both PCN and CIP data for the same content; sometimes the same LCCN is simply used on different titles).  In addition, there are rare cases where the same LCCN has inadvertently been assigned to two records (an error LC corrects as soon as we are aware of the situation).
>
>       For authority records, we face an additional issue.  There are times when records for the same heading enter the master name authority file from multiple nodes on the same day. In this case, one record is retained and the duplicate cancelled. For subject authorities, we have situations where one heading is split into two or more separate headings. In this case, the split records receive new LCCNs and the older LCCN is entered as an 010z on the new heading records.  In addition, we have situations where a name authority might be moved to subjects or vice versa; in this case, the original LCCN is again often retained in 010z.
>
>       We still assume that some folks want to be able to retrieve something. Therefore, for the LCCN Permalink service, LC decided to cast the LCCN net more broadly than the 010a. In the infrequent situation where multiple records are retrieved, all hits will be displayed on the LCCN Permalink presentations for that identifier.
>
>       Do you think that most users expect a "unique" hit?
>
>            Ann
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Rochkind [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:16 PM
> To: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> Cc: Della Porta, Ann; Code for Libraries
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Permalink service for authority data now available at LC
>
> Very nice, thanks.
>
> I wonder the rationale behind searching both valid and cancelled LCCNs.
> This has caused me trouble in the past in similar systems, because a cancelled LCCN seems in some cases to duplicate a different valid LCCN, so you search on an LCCN, and get, in this case, both the correct record and and an incorrect record -- the requirement that software take account of this and look into the records to see which is the valid one adds significant complexity to the software, and is also a detail likely to be overlooked in client software implementation.
>
> I wonder if any alternatives were considered. I'm not exactly sure what the solution is though -- if it wasn't for the _collision_ issue, then we could say requesting a permalink for a cancelled LCCN should result in an HTTP redirect to the permalink for the correct LCCN.  But a cancelled LCCN on one record can be identical to a correct LCCN on another, or theoretically the same cancelled LCCN could exist on more than one record -- making it unclear what design could be better.
>
> On 9/7/2011 1:55 PM, Della Porta, Ann wrote:
>> Apologies for cross posting.
>>
>> The Library of Congress is pleased to announce an expansion of its LCCN Permalink Service for the Library's name and subject authority records. These persistent URLs are based on the Library of Congress Control Number (LCCN). As with bibliographic records, LCCN Permalinks are displayed on authority record entries in LC Authorities<http://authorities.loc.gov>.
>>
>> Create an LCCN Permalink
>> Simply begin your URL with the LCCN Permalink domain name -- http://lccn.loc.gov/ -- then add an LCCN.
>>          Examples:  http://lccn.loc.gov/n79018774   or  http://lccn.loc.gov/sh85026371
>>
>> LCCNs should be formatted according to the info:lccn<http://info-uri.info/registry/OAIHandler?verb=GetRecord&metadataPrefix=reg&identifier=info:lccn/>   URI specification. Instructions are also available in the LCCN Permalink FAQ<http://lccn.loc.gov/lccnperm-faq.html>.
>>
>> How LCCN Permalink Works
>> An LCCN Permalink retrieves a MARCXML-formatted record using the Z39.50/SRU protocol. Both valid and cancelled LCCNs (MARC 21 fields 010a and 010z) are searched. Authority record displays for LCCN Permalink follow the labeled display found in LC Authorities. MARCXML and MADS versions of the records are also available. Displays link to entries in LC Authorities<http://authorities.loc.gov>   and the LC Online Catalog<http://catalog.loc.gov>   -- and, where appropriate, to entries in the Virtual International Authority File<http://viaf.org>   and LC Authorities and Vocabularies<http://id.loc.gov/>.
>>
>> More Information
>> Additional information on this service is available on the LCCN Permalink FAQ<http://lccn.loc.gov/lccnperm-faq.html>. Specific questions can also be sent to the Library of Congress through Ask-A-Librarian<http://www.loc.gov/rr/askalib/ask-digital.html>.
>>
>> Ann Della Porta
>> Chief, Integrated Library System Program Office Library of Congress
>> Washington, DC 20540-4010 [log in to unmask]
>>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager