Hello, We've recently begun asking those very same questions, and I am interested in hearing what others have to say.
For replacing problematic headings, I think we will need to keep a list of the problematic authority records to prevent them from re-entering our system during authority record loads. We will probably track both the (LCSH) IDs as well as the heading, so that we can be alerted if the problematic record has changed (for instance, to something less problematic, so we could go back to using it). Since we aren't (yet?) using an authority vendor, this'll likely be done in custom python scripts... but all this is still hypothetical! I'm eager to hear if/how we can improve the Author and Subject searches by indexing non-preferred headings. ________________________________ From: Evergreen-general <[email protected]> on behalf of Szwagiel, Will via Evergreen-general <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 10:05 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: Szwagiel, Will <[email protected]> Subject: [Evergreen-general] Indexing =400 Authority MARC Fields in Author and Subject Searches CAUTION: This email originated from outside of UPEI. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you are uncertain, please forward to [email protected] and delete this email. Good morning, We have been discussing ways to try and make authority records more useful in Evergreen for staff and patrons when searching the catalog. As it currently stands, if you select Author as the Catalog Field in a search and search for a version of an author's name that appears in a =400 field in the authority record, you will not receive any results. However, if you search for that same version of the author's name with Keyword selected as the Catalog Field, you will receive results. One potential solution that has been suggested is to index the =400 fields in the Author search. This led to a broader discussion regarding a project we are currently undertaking to introduce less problematic or offensive local subject headings into our MARC records. Basically we are planning to put together a list of terms that we feel are outdated or problematic and then come up with a separate list of terms with which to replace them. Instead of simply adding our local subject headings to the records and leaving the problematic ones present as is, we intend to replace the problematic ones with the new terms. This returned to the discussion of how best to handle authority records. The thinking is that we would add these new terms to the existing authority records (presumably in =400 fields) and potentially index these fields in the Subject search, as well, similar to how we discussed potentially doing this with the Author search. Has anyone else done anything like this before? If so, how has it worked out for you? If you have not had much luck with it, what would you recommend as an alternative? Thank you in advance for any insight you may be able to provide. William C. Szwagiel NC Cardinal Project Manager State Library of North Carolina [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> | 919.814.6721 https://statelibrary.ncdcr.gov/services-libraries/nc-cardinal 109 East Jones Street | 4640 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4600 The State Library is part of the NC Department of Natural & Cultural Resources. Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. ________________________________ Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized state official.
_______________________________________________ Evergreen-general mailing list [email protected] http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/evergreen-general
