ruthbrarian’s Twitter Archive—№ 2,550

Just started reading Amber Billey's "Just Because We Can Doesn't Mean We Should" and I think I'm gonna livetweet bits as I go because the abstract has got me. "This paper argues that we should return to a simpler, pre-RDA authority record." 👓go on
On twitter.com ♻️ 1 Retweets ❤️ 23 Favorites 2019 Apr 4 Mood +1 🙂

…in reply to @ruthbrarian
Billey includes the only sentence which changed between 3rd & 4th eds. of Organization of Info, that we rarely get into philosophical debates over nature of reality, aboutness, subject determination.
Permalink On twitter.com ❤️ 2 Favorites 2019 Apr 4 Mood -2 🙁

…in reply to @ruthbrarian
But while the ed. adds the statement that cataloging is not a neutral act, it doesn't go much farther. It emphasizes complexity without drawing it out.
Permalink On twitter.com ❤️ 2 Favorites 2019 Apr 4 Mood 0

…in reply to @ruthbrarian
Pulling back to Cutter's 3 objects for a library catalog to FRBR tasks -- find, identify, select, obtain... and yes, I agree they're pretty similar to Cutter, just less concrete, e.g. Cutter is explicit about editions & characters of books.
Permalink On twitter.com ❤️ 2 Favorites 2019 Apr 4 Mood +3 🙂

…in reply to @ruthbrarian
Oh no, the FRBR Group Entities diagram, I perish.
Permalink On twitter.com ❤️ 7 Favorites 2019 Apr 4 Mood -1 🙁

…in reply to @ruthbrarian
FRAD becomes legend, legend becomes myth... no wait, FRAD becomes codified into RDA, that becomes the toolkit, and "RDA is the first instance where catalogers are being asked to describe people."
Permalink On twitter.com ❤️ 5 Favorites 2019 Apr 4 Mood -2 🙁

…in reply to @ruthbrarian
I will insert my own tiny quibble that by saying that a person should best be described by X or Y name, there was certainly some element of description before. But far far more limited.
Permalink On twitter.com ❤️ 4 Favorites 2019 Apr 4 Mood +2 🙂

…in reply to @ruthbrarian
This can include -- name of person, dates associated, title of person, fuller form of name, other designation, GENDER, place of birth, place of death, country associated, place of residence, address (!!), language, field of activity, profession/occupation...
Permalink On twitter.com ❤️ 3 Favorites 2019 Apr 4 Mood -2 🙁

…in reply to @ruthbrarian
Now we get to LRM 😬 with Find, Identify, Select, Obtain, EXPLORE... Explore being the exciting new idea of tracing relationships... (which can be done in fun & less intrusive ways, she adds, e.g. making more visible all the times X & Y collaborated).
Permalink On twitter.com ❤️ 4 Favorites 2019 Apr 4 Mood +7 🙂

…in reply to @ruthbrarian
(oh sorry I left out FRAD's user tasks of Find, Identify, Contextualize, Justify because really)
Permalink On twitter.com ❤️ 3 Favorites 2019 Apr 4 Mood -1 🙁

…in reply to @ruthbrarian
"Prior to RDA, the primary goal of authority work was identification and disambiguation." ...you want those unique "headings" or "authorized access points." Generally doesn't include biographical or historical data (this is somewhat different from archival work)
Permalink On twitter.com ❤️ 5 Favorites 2019 Apr 4 Mood +2 🙂

…in reply to @ruthbrarian
Each new descriptive field is a possible new site of cataloger bias.
Permalink On twitter.com ❤️ 6 Favorites 2019 Apr 4 Mood -1 🙁

…in reply to @ruthbrarian
"Catalogers presume that they are recording facts about the person, but there are plenty of places in an authority record where judgment or biases may creep in and potentially cause harm for the individual being described."
Permalink On twitter.com ❤️ 8 Favorites 2019 Apr 4 Mood -1 🙁

…in reply to @ruthbrarian
People may also consciously/unconsciously censor things which THEY consider to be derogatory to that person. Billey uses the example of Maya Angelou as sex worker. It's in her autobio, and many other places.
Permalink On twitter.com ❤️ 5 Favorites 2019 Apr 4 Mood -2 🙁

…in reply to @ruthbrarian
Did catalogers judge that it did didn't matter? That it wasn't relevant to her work? Did they fear it would make Dr. Angelou lesser in someone's eyes?
Permalink On twitter.com ❤️ 4 Favorites 2019 Apr 4 Mood -1 🙁

…in reply to @ruthbrarian
............I hadn't encountered this, but after my run-in with people who thought "prisoner" was an occupation, I should not be surprised that some catalogers thought Occupation: Slaves, was the best way to express it...
Permalink On twitter.com ❤️ 5 Favorites 2019 Apr 4 Mood -2 🙁

…in reply to @ruthbrarian
Billey isn't going to get into technical definitions of occupation and forced situations but ask whether this is a necessary and accurate way of recording that a person was enslaved.
Permalink On twitter.com ❤️ 4 Favorites 2019 Apr 4 Mood -3 🙁

…in reply to @ruthbrarian
Also, authorities for the most famous people who were enslaved (and who then rebelled against that--Turner, Tubman, Vesey, etc.) DON'T have the occupation "Slave." Billey isn't arguing we add it to them, but that this demonstrates more inconsistency.
Permalink On twitter.com ❤️ 2 Favorites 2019 Apr 4 Mood -3 🙁

…in reply to @ruthbrarian
honestly, livetweeting the read is stopping me from pausing to punch something for a min, which is probably good for me/my furniture.
Permalink On twitter.com ❤️ 9 Favorites 2019 Apr 4 Mood +2 🙂

…in reply to @ruthbrarian
Now, Billey's pivoting to the utility of such data. Is there at least a defense of utility and has it improved our lives/discovery processes? Publications by women politicians in the united states: 19 results in Connexion Entity Attributes, 7526 in Wikidata.
Permalink On twitter.com ❤️ 1 Favorite 2019 Apr 4 Mood +3 🙂

…in reply to @ruthbrarian
Addressing the question of PII ... though from having redacted such, I'll note that there's also a distinction between Personally Identifiable Information and Protected PII. e.g. my selfies are PII but not protected. In SOME contexts my image _should_ be protected.
Permalink On twitter.com 2019 Apr 4 Mood +1 🙂

…in reply to @ruthbrarian
HOWEVER just because something doesn't fall under "yeah absolutely have to protect it at all times" -- e.g. employer, doesn't mean you should just put it out there all of the time you're not supposed to be protecting it either. NIST publication here: csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/sp/800-122/final
Permalink On twitter.com ❤️ 3 Favorites 2019 Apr 4 Mood +2 🙂

…in reply to @ruthbrarian
Field Billey identifies as PII include fuller form of name, address (yeah def), birth date (heck yes), and place of birth. [did you know you can do a decent job w/getting socials from just that info?] Also maybe gender & affiliation.
Permalink On twitter.com ❤️ 1 Favorite 2019 Apr 4 Mood +2 🙂

…in reply to @ruthbrarian
I'm going to pause for a second and grab a phrase from my own book chapter re: trans people's dead names: "Does a public discussion of one’s complex name give catalogers license to ignore expressed wishes and display it in every catalog record of one’s work forever?"
Permalink On twitter.com ❤️ 6 Favorites 2019 Apr 4 Mood -3 🙁

…in reply to @ruthbrarian
There's a difference between information being out there and our decisions to codify it as "authority" and just saying a thing doesn't license everyone to use that thing about you forever.
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 1 Retweets ❤️ 5 Favorites 2019 Apr 4 Mood +1 🙂