仅仅因为我们可以,并不意味着我们应该:在关联数据环境中,名称授权工作的简单性和数据隐私的争论

Q2 Social Sciences
Amber Billey
{"title":"仅仅因为我们可以,并不意味着我们应该:在关联数据环境中,名称授权工作的简单性和数据隐私的争论","authors":"Amber Billey","doi":"10.1080/19386389.2019.1589684","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Neutrality is a core tenet of librarianship, although it is widely accepted that cataloging is not a neutral act. In 1876, Charles Ammi Cutter outlined the model for a library catalog. That model remained largely unchanged for over 120 years; however the publication and adoption of Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD), and Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) by the international cataloging community in the late 1990s and early 2000s ushered in new models for organizing and describing bibliographic resources. Although the “FRBR Family” of models remains true to Cutter’s guiding principles at their core, they explicitly introduced specific attributes for describing bibliographic entity groups. In particular, FRAD greatly expanded the attributes to record about Persons, and these attributes were codified in the contemporary cataloging standard Resource Description and Access (RDA). As a result, catalogers now capture much more information about people in authority records than ever before. The contribution of all this new additional metadata into authority files has the potential to harm the actual people we are now cataloging by misidentifying or censoring information through cataloger bias or by capturing personally identifying information that could be used against the person. This has great ramifications in the linked data environment when the metadata is reused and can no longer be controlled by the individuals or institutions who created the original data. The risks are too great and we have yet to see the results in our discovery systems to rationalize adding so much personal information about people in library authority records. This paper argues that we should return to a simpler, pre-RDA authority record. However, the likelihood of changing RDA is slim, but we can adjust our cataloging practice to record only the most necessary information in authority records to curb catalog bias and insure personal data privacy for authors and contributors in our authority files.","PeriodicalId":39057,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Library Metadata","volume":"49 1","pages":"1 - 17"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Just Because We Can, Doesn’t Mean We Should: An Argument for Simplicity and Data Privacy With Name Authority Work in the Linked Data Environment\",\"authors\":\"Amber Billey\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/19386389.2019.1589684\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Neutrality is a core tenet of librarianship, although it is widely accepted that cataloging is not a neutral act. In 1876, Charles Ammi Cutter outlined the model for a library catalog. That model remained largely unchanged for over 120 years; however the publication and adoption of Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD), and Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) by the international cataloging community in the late 1990s and early 2000s ushered in new models for organizing and describing bibliographic resources. Although the “FRBR Family” of models remains true to Cutter’s guiding principles at their core, they explicitly introduced specific attributes for describing bibliographic entity groups. In particular, FRAD greatly expanded the attributes to record about Persons, and these attributes were codified in the contemporary cataloging standard Resource Description and Access (RDA). As a result, catalogers now capture much more information about people in authority records than ever before. The contribution of all this new additional metadata into authority files has the potential to harm the actual people we are now cataloging by misidentifying or censoring information through cataloger bias or by capturing personally identifying information that could be used against the person. This has great ramifications in the linked data environment when the metadata is reused and can no longer be controlled by the individuals or institutions who created the original data. The risks are too great and we have yet to see the results in our discovery systems to rationalize adding so much personal information about people in library authority records. This paper argues that we should return to a simpler, pre-RDA authority record. However, the likelihood of changing RDA is slim, but we can adjust our cataloging practice to record only the most necessary information in authority records to curb catalog bias and insure personal data privacy for authors and contributors in our authority files.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39057,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Library Metadata\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"1 - 17\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Library Metadata\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2019.1589684\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Library Metadata","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2019.1589684","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

尽管编目不是一种中立的行为被广泛接受,但中立性是图书馆工作的核心原则。1876年,查尔斯·阿米·卡特概述了图书馆目录的模型。这种模式在120多年里基本没有改变;然而,国际编目界在20世纪90年代末和21世纪初出版并采用了《书目记录功能需求》(FRBR)、《权威数据功能需求》(FRAD)和《主题权威数据功能需求》(FRSAD),开创了组织和描述书目资源的新模式。尽管“FRBR家族”的模型在其核心仍然忠于Cutter的指导原则,但它们明确地为描述书目实体组引入了特定的属性。特别是,FRAD极大地扩展了关于人物的记录属性,并将这些属性编入当代编目标准资源描述与访问(RDA)中。因此,编目人员现在比以往任何时候都能从权威记录中获得更多关于人的信息。所有这些新的附加元数据对权威文件的贡献有可能伤害我们现在正在编目的实际人物,因为编目者的偏见导致错误识别或审查信息,或者通过捕获可能用于对个人不利的个人识别信息。当元数据被重用,并且不能再由创建原始数据的个人或机构控制时,这在链接数据环境中会产生很大的影响。风险太大了,我们还没有看到我们的发现系统的结果,以合理地在图书馆权威记录中添加如此多的个人信息。本文认为,我们应该回到一个更简单的、rda之前的权威记录。然而,改变RDA的可能性很小,但我们可以调整编目实践,在权威记录中只记录最必要的信息,以遏制编目偏见,并确保权威文件中作者和贡献者的个人数据隐私。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Just Because We Can, Doesn’t Mean We Should: An Argument for Simplicity and Data Privacy With Name Authority Work in the Linked Data Environment
Abstract Neutrality is a core tenet of librarianship, although it is widely accepted that cataloging is not a neutral act. In 1876, Charles Ammi Cutter outlined the model for a library catalog. That model remained largely unchanged for over 120 years; however the publication and adoption of Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD), and Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) by the international cataloging community in the late 1990s and early 2000s ushered in new models for organizing and describing bibliographic resources. Although the “FRBR Family” of models remains true to Cutter’s guiding principles at their core, they explicitly introduced specific attributes for describing bibliographic entity groups. In particular, FRAD greatly expanded the attributes to record about Persons, and these attributes were codified in the contemporary cataloging standard Resource Description and Access (RDA). As a result, catalogers now capture much more information about people in authority records than ever before. The contribution of all this new additional metadata into authority files has the potential to harm the actual people we are now cataloging by misidentifying or censoring information through cataloger bias or by capturing personally identifying information that could be used against the person. This has great ramifications in the linked data environment when the metadata is reused and can no longer be controlled by the individuals or institutions who created the original data. The risks are too great and we have yet to see the results in our discovery systems to rationalize adding so much personal information about people in library authority records. This paper argues that we should return to a simpler, pre-RDA authority record. However, the likelihood of changing RDA is slim, but we can adjust our cataloging practice to record only the most necessary information in authority records to curb catalog bias and insure personal data privacy for authors and contributors in our authority files.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Library Metadata
Journal of Library Metadata Social Sciences-Library and Information Sciences
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信