You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In instances where we prefer to use a local term over a recognized authority (e.g. in LCSH, LCNAF, OCLC authorities, etc. the vocabularies that our imported records, whether through z39.50 or other sources, tend to use) we need a routine for catching and correcting incoming records. We may be able to use /api/v1/authorities?_match=term to identify authority records created from new records, which we can then merge into our official ones.
Most libraries address this problem with a mapping in front of their search index, but we don't use a separate search engine and do not have this sort of control over Koha or Summon. I also prefer not to have the undesirable terms appear anywhere in our record, even if they are somehow masked in search or display, as we are still subjecting library workers and anyone who might view/reuse our data to them. We might have to accept "see also"/"use for" type relations in our authority records, but at least authority records are not exposed to end users (only their main access point) and are also far less visible to our staff.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In instances where we prefer to use a local term over a recognized authority (e.g. in LCSH, LCNAF, OCLC authorities, etc. the vocabularies that our imported records, whether through z39.50 or other sources, tend to use) we need a routine for catching and correcting incoming records. We may be able to use
/api/v1/authorities?_match=term
to identify authority records created from new records, which we can then merge into our official ones.Most libraries address this problem with a mapping in front of their search index, but we don't use a separate search engine and do not have this sort of control over Koha or Summon. I also prefer not to have the undesirable terms appear anywhere in our record, even if they are somehow masked in search or display, as we are still subjecting library workers and anyone who might view/reuse our data to them. We might have to accept "see also"/"use for" type relations in our authority records, but at least authority records are not exposed to end users (only their main access point) and are also far less visible to our staff.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: