RIMMF: In RIMMF, is it better to import a MARC Authority record rather than start from scratch?

[GordonDunsire]

No description provided.

[tmqrichard]

Based on our solution to issue #4, I've added a Data Option that allows users to opt out of importing a MARC Authority and use a manufactured (brief) entity record instead.

This new option is named
"During import, always manufacture entity records for Agents"

It is present as of Release 150610, but it is disabled by default.

[tmqdeborah]

Everyone should be very careful about turning this option on; it does exactly what it says, it disables NAF import of Agent records, and always creates a brief RIMMF record for person, family, and corporate body headings in an imported Bib record. I find it hard to think of when anyone would want to do this, except for very experimental purposes.

[tmqdeborah]

The original question is really about importing MARC Authority records for Works, whether manually, or during a Bib import process (when we get that working). There is usually very little information in the authority records for works (other than variant titles, most of which are actually variant access points for translation expressions).

If we import the Work authority record:

• Pros:
  • we have a permalink to the NACO authority record (in Identifier for the Work)
  • we have a source MARC record attached to the RIMMF record for easy look up
  • we get any additional data provided in the record, e.g., Variant titles, Source consulted.
• Cons:
  • we have to manually add subjects to the RIMMF record (at this time, until we can get 'data merging' to work in RIMMF)

I do think that it is important to always make a link to a NACO authority record or VIAF record, if one is available; so if anyone decides to have RIMMF create the Work record from a Bib record, rather than importing a Work authority record, then I would strongly advise adding the authority LCCN and/or the permalink for the Work authority record to the RIMMF Work record, if at all possible.