Authority Control Today: Principles, Practices, and Trends


Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wccq20

Cataloging & Classification Quarterly

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wccq20

Authority Control Today: Principles, Practices, and
Trends

Rebecca A. Wiederhold & Gregory F. Reeve

To cite this article: Rebecca A. Wiederhold & Gregory F. Reeve (2021) Authority Control Today:
Principles, Practices, and Trends, Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 59:2-3, 129-158, DOI:
10.1080/01639374.2021.1881009

To link to this article:  https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2021.1881009

Published online: 12 Feb 2021.

Submit your article to this journal 

Article views: 5953

View related articles 

View Crossmark data

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wccq20
https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wccq20
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/01639374.2021.1881009
https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2021.1881009
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=wccq20&show=instructions
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=wccq20&show=instructions
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/01639374.2021.1881009
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/01639374.2021.1881009
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/01639374.2021.1881009&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2021-02-12
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/01639374.2021.1881009&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2021-02-12


Authority Control Today: Principles, Practices,
and Trends

Rebecca A. Wiederhold and Gregory F. Reeve
aHarold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA

ABSTRACT
Authority control enhances the accessibility of library resour-
ces by controlling the choice and form of access points,
improving users’ ability to efficiently find the works most rele-
vant to their information search. While authority control and
the technologies that support its implementation continue to
evolve, the underlying principles and purposes remain the
same. Written primarily for a new generation of librarians, this
paper illuminates the importance of authority control in cata-
loging and library database management, discusses its history,
describes current practices, and introduces readers to trends
and issues in the field, including future applications beyond
the library catalog.

ARTICLE HISTORY
Received October 2020
Revised January 2021
Accepted January 2021

KEYWORDS
Authority control; controlled
vocabularies; catalog
maintenance; library
catalogs; OPACs;
cooperative cataloging;
information retrieval

Introduction

As a continually growing and changing database, the library’s catalog
requires ongoing maintenance, especially through disciplined authority con-
trol practice. Joudrey, Taylor, and Miller’s definition of authority control
states, “Authority control is the result of the process of maintaining con-
sistency in the verbal form used to represent an access point and the fur-
ther process of showing the relationships among names, works, and
subjects. It is accomplished through use of cataloging guidelines (in the
case of names and titles), use of a controlled vocabulary, and reference to
an authority file.”1 Following good authority control practice, catalogers
assign one consistent form of a name, title, or subject to bring together all
related items in a library catalog, which helps users by reducing the amount
of work they must do to think of all the possible ways the object of their
search might be represented. While the work can be time-consuming and
intellectually demanding, the pay-off for the user experience is incalculable.
Library patrons of today expect seamless information retrieval and sophisti-
cated database navigation. Correct application of authority control best
practices assists catalogers in meeting these needs, while connecting users

CONTACT Rebecca A. Wiederhold rebecca_wiederhold@byu.edu Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young
University, Provo, UT 84602-0002, USA.
� 2021 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

CATALOGING & CLASSIFICATION QUARTERLY
2021, VOL. 59, NOS. 2–3, 129–158
https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2021.1881009

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/01639374.2021.1881009&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2021-04-09
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3872-5563
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7908-3755
https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2021.1881009
http://www.tandfonline.com


to the most relevant resources for their information search. Barbara Tillett
explained the essential nature of authority control within libraries over
three decades ago, stating, “In order to accomplish the finding and gather-
ing functions, the catalog must have authority control. Authority control is
inherent to a catalog and without it, a file cannot be considered a catalog.”2

Technical services librarians today must be just as passionate about this
essential function of their jobs.
In a foundational text on the topic, Clack states, “What is authority con-

trol? It is a technical process executed on a library catalog to provide struc-
ture. Uniqueness, standardization, and linkages are the foundation of
authority control.”3 In the process of identifying and describing informa-
tion resources, catalogers create bibliographic records that are gathered into
a library catalog, which serves as a tool for library users to find resources
that meet their information needs. The information resource is described
within a structured bibliographic record with various types of information
keyed into data fields. Within this context, authority control is a key aspect
of the cataloger’s work. The cataloger must find the names, subjects, and
titles that are associated with the information resource and enter these in
searchable fields within the record. These become the authorized access
points by which the resource may be found through the searching func-
tions of the library database.
Authority work is the process by which the cataloger ensures that the

catalog links related resources through the foundational concepts outlined
by Clack: uniqueness, standardization, and linkages. When catalogers create
or revise authorized access points, they must ensure each access point’s
uniqueness, thereby enabling differentiation between similar names or
terms. Standardization helps catalogers to select an authorized access point
which will allow related resources to be collocated. Standards such as
Resource Description and Access (RDA) provide catalogers with guidelines
for the creation of authority records for names and titles. The use of com-
mon thesauri such as Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) for
selecting subject terms also supports the access points through standardiza-
tion. Linkages are made possible through the encoding standards that
underpin the data elements.
With the upcoming generation of librarians in mind, this article seeks to

provide a foundational introduction on the topic, including a history of the
development of authority control practice, definitions of key terms, discus-
sion of the content and encoding metadata standards that govern how
authority records are created, and a description of current authority control
practice within libraries. The use of local and cooperative authority files is
discussed, along with an introduction to the automation of authority control
through library vendor services. This paper also elucidates the importance of

130 R. A. WIEDERHOLD AND G. F. REEVE



authority control in cataloging and library database management and how
authority control benefits users of the library catalog in helping them find
the information resources they need. An introduction to current issues and
trends within the field includes discussion of authorized access points as fac-
ets, federated authority databases, linked data, and ethical authority control
practice. Finally, the future of authority control is explored.

Authority control defined

Authority control must be understood within the context of the library
catalog and its essential functions. The library and its staff meet the infor-
mation needs of library patrons by acquiring, processing, cataloging, main-
taining, and circulating physical and digital information resources (e.g.,
monographs, e-books, journals, reference materials, scholarly articles, arch-
ival collections, audiovisual items, databases, maps, etc.). Cataloging is the
process whereby catalog librarians create, update, and maintain metadata
through careful description and structured information display to assist
users in discovering library resources that best serve their needs.
Commonly referred to as “data about data,” metadata is the sum total of
what one can say about a given information object at any level of aggrega-
tion recorded in a structured form.4 Metadata for an information resource
is organized in a bibliographic record. Bibliographic records are collected
together into a database that is part of the library catalog. Bibliographic
records contain the metadata to describe, differentiate, relate, and locate
information resources. In this way, the bibliographic record acts as a surro-
gate for the information resource, allowing the library patrons to learn
about a particular item and decide whether it will meet their need without
having to physically examine each potential resource.
Authority control is the set of processes and procedures to formulate

and record “authorized heading forms in [bibliographic records]” so that
“access points to [bibliographic] records are given one and only one con-
ventional form.”5 When catalogers perform authority work, they establish,
through verification and validation, controlled headings or authorized
access points for various entity types (e.g., people, places, corporate bodies,
families, titles, subjects, and genres) used in information resource descrip-
tion. To describe an information resource, catalogers search for, and assign
authorized access points to, the bibliographic record. For example, while
cataloging the graphic novel Maus: A Survivor’s Tale, a cataloger would
search for the authorized access point representing the graphic novel’s
author, Art Spiegelman (e.g., “Spiegelman, Art”), and assign this access
point as the author of the resource.

CATALOGING & CLASSIFICATION QUARTERLY 131



Authorized access points create a consistent, predictable form to uniquely
identify information resources (e.g., by choosing the item’s author, series
title, subject, additional contributors, etc.) and collocate related resources
(i.e., bring together all items by a given author or about a specific subject).
Variant access points, or alternative identities for a given entity, are also
recorded to guide catalogers and patrons to the authorized access point.
For example, a possible authorized access point for the animator, entrepre-
neur, and film producer Walt Disney could be “Disney, Walt.” Since he is
also known as Walter Elias Disney, a variant access point “Disney, Walter
Elias” could be created. Additional metadata is also recorded to differenti-
ate similar entities and document decisions made by the cataloger. All
metadata associated with an authorized access point is organized into an
authority record. To maintain consistent and unique access points within a
library catalog, the recording of metadata in an authority record is gov-
erned by metadata content standards. Metadata in an authority record is
encoded following metadata encoding standards. The principles, standards,
and practices of modern authority control are shaped by its history.

History of authority control

Within the realm of bibliographic control, of which both cataloging and
authority control are a part, understanding the history of the library catalog
can help illustrate the development of theory, principles, and practices that
form the foundation of authority control today. The library catalog is “an
organized compilation of bibliographic metadata that represents the hold-
ings of a particular institution.”6 This catalog records various kinds of
information about each information object in the library’s collection and
has taken on varying forms and styles over the years as cataloging princi-
ples and practices were developed (see Figure 1).
In the mid-19th century, Anthony Panizzi, a key figure in the develop-

ment of the library catalog, established a 91-rule plan to “systematize the
operation of cataloging.”7 These rules created a prototype of modern-day
catalogs with headings (a concept referred to as access points by current
standards), descriptions, references, and notes recorded for each item in
the catalog. Panizzi’s 91 rules demonstrated the value of creating consistent
headings for recording information about library materials in the library
catalog. This creates bibliographic entries with consistent access points used
to find and collocate library materials.
Charles A. Cutter’s 1904 “Objects and Means” for the catalog8 built upon the

work of Panizzi by enumerating the catalog’s purpose of connecting patrons to
library materials and defining the kind of information required to achieve
this end. Cutter’s rules identified two fundamental purposes of the catalog: 1)

132 R. A. WIEDERHOLD AND G. F. REEVE



help users find known items, and 2) collocate related resources either by author,
title, edition, or subject. The catalog could only serve these core roles by using
consistent and unique access points for each item in the catalog. Cataloging
rules released in 1941 and 1949 by the American Library Association began
codifying rules for authority control with the motivation to support the work of
catalogers in creating consistent and unique headings and cross references
between headings.9 Seymour Lubetzky, a specialist in cataloging policy at the
Library of Congress (LC), showed the value of simplifying and standardizing
cataloging rules to create a universal standard allowing interoperability between
library catalogs.10 He also emphasized the value of creating cross-references in
the catalog to lead users to the authorized access point for collocation
purposes.11 The Statement of Principles adopted by the International
Conference on Cataloguing Principles (ICCP) organized in Paris, France (also
known as the “Paris Principles” 1961)12 expanded on cataloging principles
identified by Lubetzky for creating access points in bibliographic description.
The Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR) published in 1967 and its
second edition published in 1978 provided international rules for creating
consistent and unique access points within bibliographic descriptions as well as
cross references between access points. These rules also included detailed
instructions in a chapter dedicated to forming access points.
Since the mid- to late-20th century, the International Federation of

Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) has been involved in

Figure 1. A physical card from a library catalog describing The rhetoric of Western thought by
James L. Golden. Card catalogs and other physical listings of library holdings were in general
use during the 20th century, until electronic catalogs became commonplace in most American
libraries. In this example, access points for the author and other intellectual contributors and
subject terms are included in the top and bottom sections of the card.

CATALOGING & CLASSIFICATION QUARTERLY 133



exploring, through reports and working groups, how to create an inter-
national authority control system.13 A culmination of this work was mani-
fested in the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR),
Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD), and Functional
Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) developed by IFLA and
released in 1998, 2009, and 2010 respectively. This family of conceptual
models for library metadata connects user tasks for information retrieval
with bibliographic and authority metadata by defining entities and their
relationships with other entities. These data models were used as the basis
for RDA, the successor to AACR2. Released in 2010, RDA revises sections
from AACR2 on choosing access points, gives additional guidance for con-
trolling more types of entities than in previous cataloging rules, adds rela-
tionship designators, and introduces more attributes to help differentiate
entities. In 2017, the FRBR family of data models (FRBR, FRAD, and
FRSAD) was replaced by the IFLA Library Reference Model (LRM), which
has been incorporated into the latest revision of RDA.
Advances in, and adoption of, library computer technologies led to the

development of MAchine Readable Cataloging (MARC) as an encoding
standard for both bibliographic and authority metadata.14 Developed by
Henriette D. Avram in the 1960s while working for LC, MARC
“attempted to both convert and manipulate the data stored on a catalog
card.”15 In 1974, LC began issuing lists of newly created and updated
name headings for use in other libraries. The first MARC-based authority
records were created by LC in 1977, and publication of the first edition
of Authorities: A MARC Format soon followed in 1981, making available
a national standard for recording, storing, and sharing electronic
authority records. In a relatively short amount of time, MARC developed
into an international standard that increased sharing and interoperability
between libraries.16

Converting the library catalog to an electronic environment removed the
need to publish a physical catalog list or card file. Files of authorized head-
ings were also converted into this new digital environment, allowing for more
consistent and efficient creation, updating, and sharing of catalog metadata.
Libraries adopted integrated library systems (ILSs) that provide patrons a
digital (or online) interface for searching and browsing the catalog. Authority
metadata is utilized in these search interfaces to guide patrons to the pre-
ferred access points used in catalog records so that they know what to search
to meet their information needs and to collocate related resources. While ena-
bling better access to vast quantities of information, the creation and growth
of the Web and online search engines are recent developments in the history
of the library catalog, posing unique challenges and opportunities that con-
tinue to shape authority control today.

134 R. A. WIEDERHOLD AND G. F. REEVE



Metadata content standards for authority records

Metadata content standards govern what to record in a metadata element
or record. RDA is an international metadata content standard providing
guidelines to create and maintain consistent and accurate bibliographic and
authority metadata. The development of RDA is controlled by the RDA
Steering Committee (RSC). The guidelines in the revised version of RDA
are based on the LRM, an entity-relationship framework for describing
information resources. The RDA Toolkit17 is a web-based resource catalog-
ers can use to view and reference RDA documentation and guidelines. The
Descriptive Cataloging Manual (DCM) Z1 and the LC Guidelines
Supplement to the MARC 21 Format for Authority Data are manuals made
available by LC to guide catalogers in creating and maintaining name and
series authority records. The LC Subject Headings Manual is another
resource maintained by LC detailing standards for creating and using sub-
ject authority records. These content standards and manuals guide catalog-
ers to create authority records for the following entities: personal names,
families, corporate bodies, places, works, expressions, series, and subjects.
Newer LRM entities such as timespan and nomen may in the future come
under authority control, although they are not currently. An authority
record constructed following these standards consists of five major compo-
nents: the authorized access point, variant access points, related access
points, associated attributes describing the entity, and source information.

Authorized access point

The authorized access point is the preferred form for referring to an entity.
RDA guides the cataloger in determining the preferred name or title for the
entity based on the information resource being described. For example, if
cataloging a monograph about the American actor James Stewart, the
authorized access point could be established as “Stewart, James, 1908-1997”
rather than “James Stewart,” “Stewart, James,” “Stewart, James Maitland,” or
any other possible form or variation used. Using one and only one form of
his name ensures all resources authored by, contributed by, or about this
American actor can be collocated together. This authorized access point also
differentiates this James Stewart from other people using the same or similar
name by including his birth and death dates. (For a sampling of various peo-
ple with the name James Stewart see Figure 2.) Authorized access points for
works are established by choosing the preferred title of the work. For an
entity representing the work “Moby Dick” written by Herman Melville, an
authorized access point could be “Melville, Herman, 1819-1891. Moby Dick.”
Any edition, translation, or manifestation of this work could be found
together if organized under this authorized access point. Authorized access

CATALOGING & CLASSIFICATION QUARTERLY 135



points recorded in the authority record can be used within bibliographic
records in the description and subject analysis of an information resource
acquired by a library. Using these controlled terms creates predictable and
consistent metadata used to better collocate related resources and differenti-
ate similar entities.

Variant access points

If an entity can be identified by more than one form, variant access points
can be recorded. These access points guide library users to the authorized
access point in search and retrieval. RDA provides instruction for when
and how to record variant access points for the various authority entity
types. For example, resources authored by or about English playwright,
poet, and actor William Shakespeare can manifest spelling variation in his
last name (e.g., Shakespear vs. Shakespeare) as well as variation in non-
English language resources. Corporate bodies can also be known by various
forms. For example, if “J.P. Morgan Chase and Co.” is used as the author-
ized access point for this international bank, variant access points could be
recorded for “JPMorgan Chase Bank” and “Chase Bank” so that a user
would find the access point used to describe information resources about
or by this bank. Variant access points can also be recorded for works. For
example, J. R. R. Tolkien wrote a work called “The Hobbit, or There and
Back Again.” If the authorized access point for this work was established as
“Tolkien, J. R. R. (John Ronald Reuel), 1892-1973. Hobbit,” a variant access

Figure 2. A list of people that share the name “James Stewart.” Authority control differentiates
entities that share the same name.

136 R. A. WIEDERHOLD AND G. F. REEVE



point could be created for the fuller title: “Tolkien, J. R. R. (John Ronald
Reuel), 1892-1973. Hobbit, or, There and back again.”

Related access points

Each entity represented by their authorized access point can have rela-
tionships with other entities and their authorized access points.
Guidelines in RDA help catalogers determine when and how to record
these relationships. For example, consider the authorized access point of
“Yes (Musical group)” for the English progressive rock band Yes. The
authority record for this band could include a related access point for
the original lead singer of the group “Anderson, Jon, 1944-”. Conversely,
an authority record for “Anderson, Jon, 1944-” could contain a related
access point relating him to the band “Yes (Musical group).” Related
access points can also be used to show pseudonyms used by a person.
For example, an authority record for the murder mystery author Agatha
Christie with the authorized access point “Christie, Agatha, 1890-1976”
could contain a related access point to her pseudonym Mary
Westmacott in the following form: “Westmacott, Mary, 1890-1976.”
Searching for resources by “Christie, Agatha, 1890-1976” would also
direct patrons to search for other works authored under “Westmacott,
Mary, 1890-1976.”

Associated attributes

In addition to the authorized access point, variant access point, and
related access points, entities can have additional attributes that help dif-
ferentiate similar entities. RDA and other standards specify what attrib-
utes can be recorded when known and when to use those attributes in
helping distinguish an entity from another in an access point. Related
attributes can include associated dates, fuller form of name, associated
place, occupation, associated group, type of corporate body, creator and
audience characteristics, or form of work. For example, a name authority
record for “Savage, C. R. (Charles Roscoe), 1832-1909” includes his birth
date (1832), death date (1909), and fuller form of his name (Charles
Roscoe). It also includes attributes showing he was associated with Utah
and worked as a photographer. An authority record for the city “Seattle
(Wash.)” could include an attribute describing the type of jurisdiction
using the term “Cities and towns.” An authority record for the series of
important classic and contemporary films “Criterion collection” could
include attributes showing the form of the series (e.g., “Series
(Publications)” and “Monographic series”).

CATALOGING & CLASSIFICATION QUARTERLY 137



Source information

In addition to establishing the authorized access point for a given entity,
the authority record acts as documentation showing what decisions were
made when the authority metadata was created and why. RDA and the
DCM Z1 instruct catalogers to record reference sources used in establishing
access points and recording related attributes. These sources include the
name of the source, when it was published or accessed, and the evidence
found that supports the decisions made in the authority record. For
example, when creating an authority record for David Eddings’ Belgariad
series while cataloging the third book in the series, the following reference
note could be created providing evidence for the choices made in the
record: “Magician’s gambit, 1983: title page (Book Three of The Belgariad)
title page verso (The Belgariad/Book Three).” An authority record repre-
senting an expression of the English translation of Albert Camus’ The
Stranger could include a source note for the English translation by Stuart
Gilbert published in New York by Alfred A. Knopf in 1946: “The stranger,
1946: title page (The stranger by Albert Camus; English translation by
Stuart Gilbert).” Source information also includes notes about the entity
that are helpful to other catalogers or patrons. For example, the author and
illustrator “Gorey, Edward, 1925-2000” could have a complex see also refer-
ence note directing patrons to search under his pseudonyms: “For works of
this author written under other names, search also under: Dowdy, Regera,
1925-2000; Gor�e, Ædwyrd, 1925-2000; Mude, O., 1925-2000; Ward, E. D.,
1925-2000; Weary, Ogdred, 1925-2000; Weedy, Garrod, 1925-2000; Wryde,
Dogear, 1925-2000.” An authority record for the event “South by
Southwest Music and Media Conference” may have the nonpublic note
“See also related access points for individual instances of this conference
which include specific information about the number, date, or place of the
individual conference.” This note tells catalogers that this authority record
is for the collective conference and that individual instances of the confer-
ence are established in separate authority records.

Metadata encoding standards for authority records

Authority records can be formatted for electronic storage, transmission, and
retrieval using various metadata encoding standards. Libraries primarily
encode authority records using the MARC 21 format for authority data.18

The MARC encoding standard uses machine-readable numeric tags to record
various kinds of metadata. The numeric tags recorded in a MARC authority
record are organized into classes as shown in Figure 3. In a MARC name
authority record for a person entity (see Figure 4), the authorized access
point is recorded in the 100 tag. The authorized access point is the

138 R. A. WIEDERHOLD AND G. F. REEVE



established form for an entity that would be recorded in a bibliographic
record anytime an information resource by, about, or otherwise associated
with this person is added to the library catalog. (See Figure 5 for a sample
bibliographic record using authorized access points.) Variant access points
are recorded in the 4XX tags (the “X” referring to any numeral, e.g., 410,
411, or 430) and provide “see from” references to guide patrons and staff to
the authorized access point in the 1XX tag. Relationships from one entity to
another are recorded in the 5XX tags and generate “see also” references, such
as a related corporate body or a recognized pseudonym under which an
author also writes.

Figure 3. A list of the kinds of fields used in an authority record. The highlighted heading field
is expanded to show the kinds of headings represented by the final two characters in the 1XX
heading. For more information see Library of Congress, “What is a MARC authority record?”
October 5, 2020. http://www.loc.gov/marc/uma/pt1-7.html#pt4.

CATALOGING & CLASSIFICATION QUARTERLY 139

http://www.loc.gov/marc/uma/pt1-7.html#pt4


Within the MARC authority record, 3XX tags contain attributes associ-
ated with the person including related locations (e.g., birth and death
place), areas of professional activity or expertise, occupation, associated
organizations, gender, language, and fuller form of the name. The 6XX tags
provide additional notes that guide catalogers in using the data in this
record. In particular, the 670 tag identifies sources that show evidence for

Figure 4. A sample MARC authority record highlighting the key parts of the record.

140 R. A. WIEDERHOLD AND G. F. REEVE



Figure 5. A sample bibliographic record for the collection of poems by Leslie Norris entitled
Recollections. The highlighted fields show the authorized access points established in the library
catalog’s authority database.

CATALOGING & CLASSIFICATION QUARTERLY 141



the decisions and metadata included in the record. Most importantly, these
sources provide evidence for the forms chosen in the 1XX and 4XX fields.
Tags 000, 001, 005, and 008 represent fixed field data to identify informa-
tion about the record itself, including the type of record, when the record
was created, and how the record can be used. Tags 010 and 035 are control
numbers that uniquely identify the authority record in library systems and
databases and facilitate record overlay when updating authority records.
Tag 040 identifies the language of description and the content standard for
the metadata. It also identifies the institutions that contributed to the cre-
ation and maintenance of the record. Dates related to the entity, including
birth and death dates, are coded in the 046 tag. Any 9XX tags store local
information specific to the source database for the record. In addition to
personal names, MARC authority records are created for place names, cor-
porate bodies, families, series, works, expressions, topical and geographic
subjects, and genres.19 The MARC 21 format for authority data provides a
sophisticated encoding standard for recording, maintaining, and sharing
authority metadata.

How authority control is used in libraries

In the process of cataloging an information resource the cataloger chooses
access points to uniquely identify the resource and to collocate related resour-
ces. Access points represent a unique entity and are recorded in authority
records. Authority records are stored and maintained within an authority
database or authority file. If an authority record for a chosen entity exists in
an authority database, the cataloger can re-use the authorized access point
from the authority record. If an authority record for the entity does not yet
exist in the authority database, the cataloger can add a new authority record
to the file, whether by creating a new record or downloading an existing
authority record from an external source. Authority databases can be catego-
rized into two main kinds: local and cooperative. A local authority database
refers to an authority file stored and maintained by an individual information
organization. A cooperative authority database refers to an authority file
stored and maintained by a community of information organizations on a
regional, national, or international scale.

Local authority databases

Many libraries maintain a local authority file using a variety of means includ-
ing batch loading authority records, partnering with library vendors, partici-
pating in cooperative cataloging programs, or manually creating or editing
authority records one-by-one. A library’s local authority database is typically

142 R. A. WIEDERHOLD AND G. F. REEVE



maintained as part of their integrated library system (ILS) alongside other
library metadata including bibliographic records. To disambiguate seemingly
similar but different resources and collocate related resources, the ILS forms
relationships between authority and bibliographic records by using authorized
access points from the authority database. When an access point used in a
bibliographic record matches the authorized form from an authority record, a
link may be created to the authority and indexed in the system along with
links from variant references and from related entries defined in the authority
record. The ILS does the work to index and collocate these related records
for later search and retrieval. The library catalog or discovery system that a
library uses to help patrons search, browse, and discover information resour-
ces can utilize the information recorded in the authority record to collocate
materials with bibliographic metadata that shares the same access point, direct
patrons from variant access points to the authorized access point, and direct
them to search under alternate identities to make sure all resources by or
about the entity are discovered.
Consider the example of Theodor Seuss Geisel, an American children’s

author, political cartoonist, illustrator, poet, animator, and filmmaker. He
authored works using the pen name Dr. Seuss. Since he wrote using both
his given name and his pen name, two authority records could be created
(see Figure 6). Each of the authority records contains a related access point
and public note showing the related alternate identity. Bibliographic
records for information resources by or about these entities would use the
authorized access point from the corresponding authority record. If a
patron wanted to find all resources authored by Dr. Seuss, the catalog dis-
play would direct them to use the form “Seuss, Dr.” since that is the form

Figure 6. Dr. Seuss represents a pseudonym for Theodor Seuss Geisel. These two authority
records for Dr. Seuss and Theodor Seuss Geisel show how links are formed between entities in
an authority database.

CATALOGING & CLASSIFICATION QUARTERLY 143



used in the authorized access point. Results in the catalog could also direct
the patrons to search under other alternate identities including “Geisel,
Theodor Seuss, 1904-1991” to make sure they find all materials by this per-
son. The catalog could also support searches for materials by “Geisel,
Theodor, Seuss, 1904-1991” that direct the patron to search also under
“Seuss, Dr.” (see Figure 7).

Cooperative authority databases

A library’s local authority database stands in contrast to cooperative
authority databases maintained on a regional, national, or international
scale. Libraries can participate in cooperative cataloging programs allowing
them access to a pool of shared authority records as well as allowing them
to contribute new or updated records to the shared database. Cooperative
cataloging programs provide participating libraries documentation and poli-
cies clarifying how to apply metadata content standards when contributing
authority records to the authority database. LC’s Program for Cooperative
Cataloging (PCC) maintains various cooperative cataloging initiatives

Figure 7. Example catalog searches showing how a patron is directed to search for resources
using alternate identities defined within the authority database.

144 R. A. WIEDERHOLD AND G. F. REEVE



including the Name Authority Cooperative Program (NACO) and the
Subject Authority Cooperative Program (SACO). These two programs cre-
ate and maintain a shared national database of authority records that can
be leveraged by libraries in the creation and maintenance of their own local
catalogs. Libraries can automate the integration of records from the shared
cooperative databases into their local authority database whether they par-
ticipate in the programs or not.

Automated authority control

Many libraries use vendors to obtain authority records and to purchase
authority control services as means of automating the clean up of access
points in their bibliographic database and the maintenance of their local
authority file. Due to the labor-intensive nature of authority control, out-
sourcing some of this work can increase efficiency and control costs.20 The
number of options for outsourcing authority control services has decreased
in recent years to a handful of vendors,21 the majority of which provide
similar services. When a library is shopping for an authority control
vendor, a formal request for proposal (RFP) may be issued, allowing ven-
dors to respond to the library’s listed requirements and formally bid their
services for comparison. However, a simple price quote request may be suf-
ficient for the library’s needs, as long as there is thorough communication
between the library and each potential vendor about the specific services
that will be included and documentation of these options.
Once a vendor has been selected, the library works with a representative

from the vendor to develop a project profile which documents the library’s
selections on a number of processing options related to file transfer, biblio-
graphic record cleanup and enrichment, bibliographic access point and
authority file matching, record output, and reporting.22 Processing samples
can usually be requested before or after contract signing to establish expect-
ations for the results of the desired service.
Automated authority control processing of the library’s full bibliographic

database establishes a master or base file. The library’s bibliographic access
points are cleaned up and normalized in preparation for matching against
the selected authority files, especially the NACO Name Authority File
(NAF) and LCSH. If an access point matches the 1XX or 4XX from an
authority record, the authorized form will be inserted into the bibliographic
record and the authority record will be included in the output files. While
this is primarily an automated matching process, sometimes human over-
sight is required to detect and correct false matches. The library then
receives a cleaned up file of their bibliographic records and all the associ-
ated authority records to load into their ILS. Customizable reports are also

CATALOGING & CLASSIFICATION QUARTERLY 145



included, allowing libraries to follow up the automated processing with any
needed manual review for access points that could not be confidently
matched by the machine. This maximizes the benefits of an automated
authority control workflow while allowing library staff to focus their efforts
on the authority work that most needs their expert evaluation.
Optional ongoing services can also be contracted for continued auto-

mated maintenance of the library’s authority file. Bibliographic records that
have been added to the library’s database since the original base file proc-
essing are sent to the vendor to undergo the same process. Vendors may
also provide periodic reports and MARC extracts of the authority records
which have changed since the library’s last processing.
For many libraries, outsourced automation of authority control is a rou-

tine aspect of technical services work. With the changing landscape of
metadata tools, shrinking cataloging departments, and evolving library col-
lections, some libraries are developing methods for automating authority
control in-house, using MarcEdit, SQL queries, and batch processing.23 For
programming-savvy librarians, these methods can be worthwhile to explore.
Another potential new trend is the provision of authority control within
the ILS itself, as debuted by Ex Libris’ Alma.24 If other library systems
begin offering built-in authority control functionality, vended authority
control may become a less common workflow.

Importance of authority control

The importance of authority control lies in its ability to support users’
information retrieval needs through the establishment and maintenance of
consistent, reliable, and unique access points. This brings precision to
searches and collocates related materials in results lists. The structure of
authority records with cross references and hierarchically related access
points collocates works on the same topic and improves navigation between
related concepts. Through the use of access points, it also allows for linking
between library resources and other tools, especially online.25 End users
benefit from the predictability of consistent naming and more pre-
cise results.
Library staff also benefit from the consistent application of authority

control practices within the catalog. Whenever an item needs to be added
to the catalog that has the same author as another work already cataloged,
the time spent describing the new item by the cataloger is decreased if the
name has already been established in the library’s authority file.
Maintaining a current copy of authority records in the local file is import-
ant. Outsourcing the portion of authority control work that can be auto-
mated can improve catalogers’ time and resource management,26 allowing

146 R. A. WIEDERHOLD AND G. F. REEVE



catalogers to spend their limited time on the portion of authority work that
requires their especial expertise. Establishing entities in a prescribed and
structured way ensures that both catalogers and patrons know how to dif-
ferentiate between similar entities when cataloging or searching the library
catalog for information resources.

Beyond the library catalog

Authority control for archives

Libraries may need to consider how archival authority structures comple-
ment bibliographic authority records and how these can work together in
their discovery system. Many libraries, especially within academic institu-
tions, coexist with archives, which often means that bibliographic records
for traditional library materials must also commingle with descriptions of
archival materials, whether within the library catalog, through a discovery
layer, or in other applications. Finding aids are a common discovery tool
used to describe archival and manuscript collections. This description can
be hierarchical in nature, often divided into related records within series
and sub-series, and sometimes described down to the item level, allowing
for relationships between materials within the collection to be preserved
and contextual information to be demonstrated. While collection-level
MARC records for archival materials may reside in the library catalog to
allow for both books and related archival materials to be found within the
same information search, the finding aid remains “the preferred method
for describing archival materials.”27 Finding aids generally reside outside of
the library catalog in another description platform such as an archival man-
agement system like ArchivesSpace or in a web-based discovery tool.
Authority work for archival materials must often be undertaken in mul-

tiple realms. The collection description in the library catalog will usually
conform to traditional library authority control procedures and utilize
authorized access points from library authority thesauri. The corresponding
archival description within the library’s finding aids database also benefits
from authority control. Archival authority records describe persons, fami-
lies, and corporate entities associated with a body of archival materials and
may be created utilizing the content standard in Part II of Describing
Archives: A Content Standard (DACS),28 supported through the structural
standard Encoded Archival Context-Corporate Bodies, Persons, and
Families (EAC-CPF).
The relationship between archival authorities and library authorities has

evolved in recent decades, as the concept of “context control” comes to fru-
ition, especially through the archival authority record’s inclusion of
“administrative histories and biographical sketches of organizations or

CATALOGING & CLASSIFICATION QUARTERLY 147



individuals who create records” and its documentation of “the relationships
between records creators and the records themselves.”29 One noteworthy
development in the realm of archival authorities is the international
cooperative program Social Network and Archival Context (SNAC), which
matches archival authority records from various institutions against the
NAF and other sources of authorities to merge records for the same enti-
ties. This allows for archival authority descriptions to be linked with related
archive, library, and museum resources, demonstrating the power of coord-
ination between library and archival authority control practices.30

Digital collections and institutional repositories

Information retrieval in other areas outside the bibliographic realm also
greatly relies on the consistent presentation of names and subjects in their
databases. Digital collection metadata is an example of another data reposi-
tory for which authority control should be considered important.31

Description records for digital objects may be included alongside biblio-
graphic catalog records in discovery layer results lists. The form and choice
of access points (i.e., author, subject, title, etc.) should be consistent across
platforms in order to enhance discoverability and meet user expectation,
especially in regard to bringing together descriptions of physical library
materials with a digitized version of the same items. Institutional reposito-
ries are another area that may benefit from consideration of authority con-
trol within the context of a library’s workflows and procedures, particularly
since the lack of consistency in name forms in such systems “inhibits
retrieval of items by a single author.”32

Issues and trends

Authorized access points as facets

Advances in computer and networking technologies, including the move
toward linked data and the Semantic Web, are influencing the evolution of
cataloging and authority control. Keyword searching in library catalogs and
discovery systems is driving the adoption of authorized access points used
as facets, which are smaller segments of a topic, object, or idea (e.g., sub-
ject, genre, format, creator).33 Discovery tools can surface these facets to
patrons for filtering and improving information retrieval. The controlled
vocabulary Faceted Application of Subject Terminology (FAST)34 developed
by OCLC is one example of this trend toward leveraging authorized access
points as facets. As a controlled vocabulary for subject analysis derived
from LCSH,35 FAST aims to simplify the control, use, and navigation of
subject access points. Using FAST headings in bibliographic metadata

148 R. A. WIEDERHOLD AND G. F. REEVE



enables easier indexing and display in discovery systems for use by patrons
during the information retrieval process.36

Linked data

Developed from the early 2000s, linked data and the Semantic Web37 are
technologies and best practices for publishing data on the Web. Central to
these technologies and best practices is the use of Uniform Resource
Identifiers (URIs)38 to uniquely identify an entity rather than relying on
the string representation (or label) for a given entity.39 Building on the
URI protocol are International Resource Identifiers (IRIs)40 that expand the
allowable set of characters used in a resource identifier. The use of URIs
and IRIs in authority work is a growing trend to facilitate more implicit
linking of entities to other datasets, data repositories, and catalogs that exist
online. For example, the recent revision of RDA seeks to improve integra-
tion with linked data environments by increasing the use of IRIs and add-
ing new entities and elements that are aligned with linked data best
practices. Some authority control vendors include a URI/IRI enrichment
option to their services to facilitate this linking work. These links will
enable a graph of linked entities that can be related and traversed in ways
that reveal new paths of knowledge and understanding that were not pre-
sent previously. To form an accurate knowledge graph requires differenti-
ated and unique entities and relationships between entities. While authority
control is primarily focused on managing access to entities by authorizing
a specific form of a name, title, or topic, identity management prioritizes
assigning unique identifiers to a single entity over differentiation of names.
The move toward linked data and the Semantic Web broadens and expands
the role of authority control from determining discrete access points used
in bibliographic description to a process of creating and managing entities
and their relationships to other entities. The evolution from authority con-
trol to entity and identity management blurs the lines between biblio-
graphic description and authority work.

Federated authority databases

Computing and networking technologies enable a network of authority files
and databases that are increasingly interconnected and open. The Virtual
International Authority File (VIAF)41 is an authority aggregator that col-
lects established authorities from various authority databases throughout
the world. This service provides a portal for librarians and information sci-
entists to identify established authorities for personal, corporate, and

CATALOGING & CLASSIFICATION QUARTERLY 149



geographic names as well as works, expressions, and bibliographic titles.
VIAF also enables reconciliation services to disambiguate between
those entities.
Another service receiving increased attention within cataloging and

metadata communities is Wikidata from the Wikimedia Foundation.42

Wikidata is a core service of the Web and the Semantic Web43 that enables
establishing and interlinking entities between various authority databases
and services to more fully describe and disambiguate people, places, works,
subjects, and genres. Similar to VIAF, it provides a portal for bringing
together the various authorized forms and identifiers of an entity to a sin-
gle location for reference and use. For an example, see the Wikidata entry
for William Shakespeare (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q692). Adding the
unique Wikidata identifier to a library authority record provides access to
other authority sources that could help library staff and patrons uniquely
identify entities for their work and research.44 LC’s Linked Data Service45

is an example of a national institution providing access to their authority
metadata for use by catalogers as well as developers working on library
metadata systems and discovery tools.
These and other services aid catalogers in uniquely identifying authors

and their creations. Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID)46 is a
service that allows scientific and academic authors and contributors to
uniquely identify themselves regardless of how their name is referenced in
a publication so that their creative works are correctly attributed and col-
lated together. This service acts as a form of authority control to disam-
biguate authors and their scholarly contributions. Additionally, ISNI47 is an
international standard identifier provider and service to establish perman-
ent and unique identifiers for the names of creators across multiple
domains. This service allows individuals and organizations to establish an
ISNI identifier and provides a searchable database for identifier lookup.
Federated authority databases assist the cataloger in uniquely identifying
entities and connecting resources from an individual library database with
the broader library community.

Ethical authority control practice

In addition to staying informed about technological changes and the
opportunities they present, catalogers must also remain aware of ethical
issues associated with authority control. Catalogers are increasingly cogni-
zant of the significant power they have in the creation of personal name
authority records, as they determine how a creator will be described in the
authority record. While differentiation is an important aspect of authority
work, careful consideration must be employed in determining which of

150 R. A. WIEDERHOLD AND G. F. REEVE

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q692


several possible forms of a name should be used as the authorized access
point by which an individual will be known within the database and in select-
ing the key descriptors to include in authority records. Two main areas of
authority work that are impacted by ethical concerns center around the cre-
ation of name authorities and the use and selection of subjects.
Many ethical issues faced by catalogers in creating, maintaining, and using

name authority records surround the issues of privacy and safety. Consider,
for example, the ethical issues that may come into play when doing name
authority work for the creator of a zine, which is a low-distribution, self-pub-
lished booklet generally used to convey personal experiences, information, or
interests. Because zines may contain sensitive or very personal information,
some zine creators do not want their identity known, or they may only use a
partial name or a pseudonym. While the cataloger may feel the responsibility
to do further research about a particular zine creator in order to connect all
resources they have authored, being aware of the environments in which
zines are created and distributed necessitates caution. The Zine Librarians
Code of Ethics includes guidelines for identifying and creating authority
records for zine creators which emphasize respecting their privacy and not
exposing legal identities of zine creators when not explicitly found in the
zines themselves.48 Name authority work also requires consideration of the
safety of the subject of the name authority record when recording characteris-
tics of the individual authors themselves. For example, the option to include
gender terms in authority records has raised concerns from the library com-
munity about outing transgender and gender diverse individuals. While the
Program for Cooperative Cataloging Ad Hoc Task Group on Gender in
Name Authority Records published a report in 2016 to suggest best practices
for recording gender, the discussion is still ongoing, with the issues of self-
determination and consent at its core.49 These and many other issues require
the intentional and thoughtful practice of ethical name authority work.50

Ethical concerns also come into play when catalogers are assigning sub-
ject terms, especially with relation to bias within subject lists. Subject
authority records identify the preferred access point for the topical coverage
of the information resource being described. The LCSH is a controlled
vocabulary for subject description, based on LC’s subject authority records.
As the source of subject terms most widely used in American libraries, the
LCSH is nevertheless known to contain biases that categorize library
resources from an American and Western perspective, assuming that
patrons searching the catalog will more likely be male, Christian, white,
and heterosexual.51 One example of a term in the LCSH that some people
find problematic is the phrase “illegal aliens,” which is used to describe
undocumented immigrants. The terms “illegal” and “aliens” are seen by
some to have developed dehumanizing or otherwise derogatory

CATALOGING & CLASSIFICATION QUARTERLY 151



connotations. While students and librarians formally requested that LC
change the subject heading in 2014,52 the ensuing effort to revise the ter-
minology was politically sensitive due to LC’s mandate to serve the United
States Congress, which ultimately recommended that subject headings not
stray from language used in the current U.S. code.53 While the issue
remains unresolved at the national level, many individual libraries are opt-
ing to implement the use of alternate language such as “undocumented
immigrants” or “noncitizens” within their local databases.54

Bias in subject headings may sometimes be mitigated through the use of
decentralized vocabularies. In the case of the development of the First
Nations House of Learning (FNHL) Subject Headings, librarians acknowl-
edged the potential harm to library users in applying LCSH subject terms
for Indigenous materials, due to the lack of representation of Indigenous
diversity and its misrepresentation of some concepts. The FNHL Subject
Headings seeks to incorporate accurate Aboriginal names, respecting self-
representation of “individuals, collectives, and their concepts.”55

As practitioners grapple with these challenging decisions in their author-
ity work, important conversations are emerging in academic literature, con-
ferences, forums, committees, and working groups. To bolster the
development of each individual cataloger’s judgment, the library commu-
nity is working toward the provision of better institutional guidance for the
ethical application of cataloging principles. The Cataloging Ethics Steering
Committee is a new international committee that is developing a code of
ethics for catalogers which will address key issues. Another resource pro-
duced by this committee is a growing cataloging ethics bibliography, pro-
viding catalogers a comprehensive curriculum for developing their
awareness of the issues at stake and practical solutions for scenarios they
may encounter in their work.56 Keeping abreast of the evolution of ethical
authority control practice through a study of the literature, participating in
community developments, and applying ethical principles as they are
learned will ensure catalogers have the understanding necessary to ethically
provide library users with richly connected resources and useful informa-
tion about the creators of those works.

Into the future

Various initiatives and pilot projects look to shape the future of authority
control and identity management. Directed by LC and contracted with
Zepheira, BIBFRAME57 represents a potential future of bibliographic
description that is increasingly plugged into the world of the Semantic
Web and linked data. BIBFRAME is a new encoding standard for biblio-
graphic metadata and description that is aimed at replacing the current

152 R. A. WIEDERHOLD AND G. F. REEVE



MARC 21 format. It promises improved interoperability for cooperative
cataloging and sharing as well as connecting to broader non-library Web
communities. The development of BIBFRAME and other related linked
data efforts represents a move away from thinking of bibliographic and
authority metadata as carefully crafted records toward a focus on each
element or attribute in a metadata record as data that can be combined
and mixed in varying ways and levels not typical with current library meta-
data. This trend toward atomization of metadata records requires more
reliance on authority control to provide consistent, predictable
library metadata.
The Linked Data for Libraries (LD4L)58 set of initiatives and grants rep-

resents the efforts of major academic institutions, along with LC and the
PCC, to develop guidelines for implementing the future of catalog metadata
and description with BIBFRAME at its center in a shared, cooperative
library community. Practical efforts center around catalog metadata cre-
ation, indexing, searching, and display as well as how larger Web commun-
ities like Wikidata connect to these efforts. How authority control will
inform and shape this work is an area of future research and exploration.59

Recent pilot projects have the potential to shape the future of authority
control and authority metadata. The PCC URIs in MARC records pilot60

initiated by LC and the PCC explores applying principles of linked data
and the Semantic Web to more consistent and pervasive identifier creation
and identity maintenance. The use of these identifiers enables connecting
library metadata to the larger Web and Semantic Web communities. For
example, the person entity Gottardo Aldighieri is represented in Wikidata
(Q55028861), ISNI (000000010922301462), and VIAF (8735963863). These
identifiers can be included in an authority record for this person. These
services in turn could include a link to the same entity in an existing
cooperative authority database. The PCC Wikidata pilot64 is exploring the
future of identity management by looking at Wikidata both as a source for
authority metadata that could enrich existing library metadata and serve as
a location for publishing existing authority and bibliographic metadata that
would benefit library and non-library communities alike. The shared entity
management infrastructure project65 is being developed by OCLC and part-
ners within the library community to create a persistent, shared, and cen-
tralized system for managing identifiers and metadata for library
information resources. This project aims to create an authoritative database
of library metadata to connect library collections to communities and
resources on the larger Web and Semantic Web. Just as authority control
has evolved and adapted with past technology developments, these projects
and efforts will continue to press forward in improving the creation, main-
tenance, and discovery of information resources.

CATALOGING & CLASSIFICATION QUARTERLY 153



Conclusion

With many changes on the horizon, the future of authority control practice
will continue to evolve. The interconnected network of libraries, vendors,
databases, and services that make up the authority control landscape of
today, however, are supported by a foundation of principles and purposes
that remain the same. Through good authority control practice, as uni-
formity and consistency of name, title, and subject access points is estab-
lished and cross-references are included, the library database is better
equipped to serve as a retrieval tool for materials by, about, or otherwise
related to the subject of the patron’s information search.
Cataloging students may receive basic instructions on authority control

in beginning or advanced cataloging courses, but learning how to perform
authority work is more often accomplished on the job than in library
school, especially to the level of competence that is required to effectively
maintain good authority control.66 This expertise can be achieved through
a combination of in-house instruction, attendance at workshops or online
trainings, staying up to date on library literature related to authority con-
trol, and regular, practical application through mentored authority work
during cataloging activities.67 Technical services librarians who are emerg-
ing from library school and entering the field today and others who want
to refresh their knowledge require a practical understanding of the underly-
ing principles of authority control and how their work impacts the library
user’s experience with information resource discovery.
This article has sought to provide a foundational introduction to author-

ity control, couched in the overall context of cataloging. With a basic
knowledge of the history of authority control and a new understanding of
the principles of current authority control practice, including both the con-
tent and encoding metadata standards that underpin the creation of
authority records, readers have an introduction to authority control that
can be built upon through a deeper exploration of the various issues and
trends touched on in this paper. All librarians benefit from understanding
that the relevance of library databases in meeting patrons’ information
needs relies upon authority work well performed and library metadata sys-
tems that capitalize on standardized, unique, and connected access points.

Notes on contributors

Rebecca A. Wiederhold is the Technical Services Archivist at Harold B. Lee Library. She is
responsible for cataloging the library’s manuscript collections and maintaining archival
authority structures within the library’s archives management system. She currently serves
as Immediate Past Chair of Society of American Archivists’ Standards Committee. In her
former life, Rebecca worked as a bibliographic services project manager and account

154 R. A. WIEDERHOLD AND G. F. REEVE



representative with a library services vendor, gaining experience with vendor authority con-
trol and cataloging services.

Gregory F. Reeve is the Metadata and Identities Librarian at Harold B. Lee Library since
2019. Previously he worked as a web developer within the Library’s IT division. His profes-
sional assignment includes filling the role as the library’s NACO coordinator, processing
name authority records, monitoring the quality and use of metadata within various library
systems, and leading the library in its linked data efforts. His research interests include
metadata governance, assessment, and implementation; authority control; and semantic
web technologies.

ORCID

Rebecca A. Wiederhold http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3872-5563
Gregory F. Reeve http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7908-3755

Notes

1. Daniel N. Joudrey, Arlene G. Taylor, and David P. Miller, Introduction to Cataloging
and Classification, 11th ed. (Santa Barbara, California: Libraries Unlimited, 2015), 16.

2. Barbara B. Tillett, “Considerations for Authority Control in the Online Environment,”
Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 9, no. 3 (1989): 2, http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/
J104v09n03_01.

3. Doris Hargrett Clack, Authority Control: Principles, Applications, and Instructions
(Chicago: American Library Association, 1990), 1.

4. See also ABC CLIO, “Metadata,” Online Dictionary for Library and Information
Science, October 2, 2020, https://products.abc-clio.com/ODLIS/odlis_m.aspx#metadata.

5. Robert L. Maxwell, Maxwell’s Guide to Authority Work (Chicago: American Library
Association, 2002), 1.

6. Joudrey, Taylor, and Miller, Introduction to Cataloging and Classification, 7.
7. Seymour Lubetzky, “Panizzi vs the ‘Finding Catalog’,” Journal of Cataloging and

Classification 12, no. 3 (1956): 153.
8. Charles A. Cutter, Rules for a Printed Dictionary Catalog (Washington: Government

Printing Office, 1876), 10.
9. Larry Auld, “Authority Control: An Eighty-Year Review,” Library Resources &

Technical Services 26, no. 4 (1982): 320.
10. Seymour Lubetzky, Principles of Cataloging. Final Report. Phase I: Descriptive

Cataloging (Los Angeles: Institute of Library Research, University of California, 1969),
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED031273.

11. Barbara B. Tillett “Authority Control: State of the Art and New Perspectives,”
Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 38, no. 3/4 (2004): 25, https://doi.org/10.1300/
J104v38n03_04.

12. Pino Buizza, “Bibliographic Control and Authority Control from Paris Principles to
the Present,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 38, no. 3/4 (2004): 118.

13. Auld, “Authority Control,” 326.
14. Library of Congress, “MARC Standards,” October 2, 2020, http://www.loc.gov/marc/.
15. Library of Congress, The Card Catalog (San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 2017), 152.
16. Auld, “Authority Control,” 323–25.

CATALOGING & CLASSIFICATION QUARTERLY 155

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J104v09n03_01
http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J104v09n03_01
https://products.abc-clio.com/ODLIS/odlis_m.aspx#metadata
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED031273
https://doi.org/10.1300/J104v38n03_04
https://doi.org/10.1300/J104v38n03_04
http://www.loc.gov/marc/


17. RDA Steering Committee, “Welcome to RDA Toolkit,” December 20, 2020, https://
access.rdatoolkit.org.

18. Library of Congress, “Understanding MARC Authority Records: Machine-Readable
Cataloging,” August 25, 2020, https://www.loc.gov/marc/uma; Library of Congress,
“MARC 21 Format for Authority Data,” August 25, 2020, https://www.loc.gov/
marc/authority/.

19. Library of Congress, “MARC 21 Reference Materials,” August 25, 2020, https://www.
loc.gov/marc/uma/pt12.html#pt12; Library of Congress, “Appendix B - Full Record
Examples,” August, 25, 2020, https://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/examples.html.

20. Sherry L. Vellucci, “Commercial Services for Providing Authority Control:
Outsourcing the Process,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 39, no. 1–2 (2004):
445, https://doi.org/10.1300/j104v39n01_12.

21. Rebecca L. Mugridge, Rebecca Nous, Nancy Poehlmann, and Wendy West,
“Benchmarking Vended Authority Control Practices in ARL Libraries,” Technical
Services Quarterly 35, no. 4 (2018): 333, https://doi.org/10.1080/07317131.2018.1509432.

22. Backstage Library Works, “Profile Guide,” October 1, 2020, https://ac.bslw.com/
community/wiki/index.php/Profile_Guide.

23. Mike Monaco, “Methods for In-Sourcing Authority Control with MarcEdit, SQL, and
Regular Expressions,” Journal of Library Metadata 20, no. 1 (2020): 1–27, https://doi.
org/10.1080/19386389.2019.1703497.

24. Mugridge, Nous, Poehlmann, and West, “Benchmarking Vended Authority Control
Practices in ARL Libraries,” 333.

25. Corey A. Harper and Barbara B. Tillett, “Library of Congress Controlled Vocabularies
and Their Application to the Semantic Web,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly
43, no. 3/4 (2007): 53, http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J104v43n03_03.

26. Susan L. Tsui and Carole F. Hinders, “Cost-Effectiveness and Benefits of Outsourcing
Authority Control,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 26, no. 4 (1999): 44, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1300/J104v26n04_04.

27. Michelle Sweetser and Alexandra A. A. Orchard, “Are We Coming Together? The
Archival Descriptive Landscape and the Roles of Archivist and Cataloger,” The
American Archivist 82, no. 2 (2019): 336, https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc-82-02-18.

28. Describing Archives: A Content Standard, 2nd ed. (Chicago: Society of American
Archivists, 2013).

29. Jean Dryden, “From Authority Control to Context Control,” Journal of Archival
Organization 5, no. 1/2 (2007): 4, https://doi.org/10.1300/j201v05n01_01.

30. Aranzazu Lafuente Uri�en, “Archival Authority Control: An Introduction to Encoded
Archival Context for Corporate Bodies, Persons and Families (EAC-CPF),” APEx, July
14, 2014, http://www.apex-project.eu/index.php/en/articles/184-archival-authority-control-
an-introduction-to-encoded-archival-context-corporate-bodies-persons-and-families.

31. Jeremy Myntti and Nate Cothran, “Authority Control in a Digital Repository:
Preparing for Linked Data,” Journal of Library Metadata 13, no. 2/3 (2013): 99,
https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2013.826061.

32. Dorothea Salo, “Name Authority Control in Institutional Repositories,” Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly 47, no. 3/4 (2009): 250, https://doi.org/10.1080/01639370902737232.

33. Arlene G. Taylor and Daniel N. Joudrey, The Organization of Information, 4th ed.
(Santa Barbara, California: Libraries Unlimited, 2018): 638.

34. OCLC, “OCLC FAST,” August 25, 2020, http://fast.oclc.org.
35. Library of Congress, “Library of Congress Subject Headings,” August 25, 2020, https://

id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects.html.

156 R. A. WIEDERHOLD AND G. F. REEVE

https://access.rdatoolkit.org
https://access.rdatoolkit.org
https://www.loc.gov/marc/uma
https://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/
https://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/
https://www.loc.gov/marc/uma/pt12.html#pt12
https://www.loc.gov/marc/uma/pt12.html#pt12
https://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/examples.html
https://doi.org/10.1300/j104v39n01_12
https://doi.org/10.1080/07317131.2018.1509432
https://ac.bslw.com/community/wiki/index.php/Profile_Guide
https://ac.bslw.com/community/wiki/index.php/Profile_Guide
https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2019.1703497
https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2019.1703497
http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J104v43n03_03
http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J104v26n04_04
http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J104v26n04_04
https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc-82-02-18
https://doi.org/10.1300/j201v05n01_01
http://www.apex-project.eu/index.php/en/articles/184-archival-authority-control-an-introduction-to-encoded-archival-context-corporate-bodies-persons-and-families
http://www.apex-project.eu/index.php/en/articles/184-archival-authority-control-an-introduction-to-encoded-archival-context-corporate-bodies-persons-and-families
https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2013.826061
https://doi.org/10.1080/01639370902737232
http://fast.oclc.org
https://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects.html
https://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects.html


36. Rebecca J. Dean, “FAST: Development of Simplified Headings for Metadata,” Cataloging
& Classification Quarterly 39, no. 1/2 (2004): 333, https://doi.org/10.1300/j104v39n01_03.

37. W3C, “Semantic Web,” October 2, 2020, https://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/.
38. W3C, “URI,” August 25, 2020, https://www.w3.org/wiki/URI.
39. Robert Fox, “From Strings to Things,” Digital Library Perspectives 32, no. 1 (2016): 4,

https://doi.org/10.1108/dlp-10-2015-0020.
40. W3C, “An Introduction to Multilingual Web Addresses,” December 19, 2020, https://

www.w3.org/International/articles/idn-and-iri/.
41. OCLC, “VIAF: The Virtual International Authority File,” August 25, 2020, https://

viaf.org.
42. Wikimedia Foundation, “Wikidata,” August 25, 2020, https://www.wikidata.org.
43. The next development of the Web to structure data within web pages so computers

can utilize the data in systematic ways; see also W3C, “Building the Web of Data,”
October 3, 2020, https://www.w3.org/2013/data/.

44. Theo van Veen, “Wikidata,” Information Technology and Libraries 38, no. 2 (2019):
72–81, https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v38i2.10886; Nancy Cooey, "Leveraging Wikidata to
Enhance Authority Records in the Ehri Portal," Journal of Library Metadata 19, no. 1/
2 (2019): 83–98, https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2019.1589700.

45. Library of Congress, “Linked Data Service,” August 25, 2020, https://id.loc.gov.
46. ORCID, “ORCID,” August 25, 2020, https://orcid.org.
47. ISNI International Agency, “About ISNI,” August 25, 2020, https://isni.org/.
48. ZineLibraries.info, December 12, 2020, http://zinelibraries.info/2016/05/30/code-of-

ethics-1115-web-version/.
49. Kalani Adolpho, “Who Asked You? Consent, Self-Determination, and the Report of

the PCC Ad Hoc Task Group on Gender in Name Authority Records,” in Ethical
Questions in Name Authority Control, ed. Jane Sandberg (Sacramento, CA: Library
Juice Press, 2019), 112–113.

50. Jane Sandberg, ed., Ethical Questions in Name Authority Control (Sacramento, CA:
Library Juice Press, 2019). This significant monograph builds on previous ethical
discussions in library literature to provide an ethical framework for the library
community. Contributing authors explore such issues as self-determination, privacy,
the impacts of colonialism, gender variance, transgender identities, the impacts of
emerging technologies, and suggestions for how to solve some of the ethical
challenges in this work.

51. Grace Lo, “‘Aliens’ vs. Catalogers: Bias in the Library of Congress Subject Heading,”
Legal Reference Services Quarterly 38, no. 4 (2019): 180.

52. Jill E. Baron, Change the Subject, Dartmouth Digital Library Program, 2019, video,
54:00, https://n2t.net/ark:/83024/d4hq3s42r.

53. Lo, “‘Aliens’ vs. Catalogers,” 187–88.
54. Violet Fox et al., “Report of the SAC Working Group on Alternatives to LCSH ‘Illegal

Aliens’,” American Library Association Institutional Repository, June 19, 2020, 5,
http://hdl.handle.net/11213/14582.

55. Ann M. Doyle, Kimberley Dawson, and Sarah Dupont, “Indigenization of Knowledge
Organization at the Xwi7xwa Library,” International Journal of Library and
Information Studies 13, no. 2 (2015): 116.

56. Cataloging Steering Committee website, August 30, 2020, https://sites.google.com/
view/cataloging-ethics/home.

57. Library of Congress, “Bibliographic Framework Initiative,” August 25, 2020, https://
www.loc.gov/bibframe/.

CATALOGING & CLASSIFICATION QUARTERLY 157

https://doi.org/10.1300/j104v39n01_03
https://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/
https://www.w3.org/wiki/URI
https://doi.org/10.1108/dlp-10-2015-0020
https://www.w3.org/International/articles/idn-and-iri/
https://www.w3.org/International/articles/idn-and-iri/
https://viaf.org
https://viaf.org
https://www.wikidata.org
https://www.w3.org/2013/data/
https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v38i2.10886
https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2019.1589700
https://id.loc.gov
https://orcid.org
https://isni.org/
http://zinelibraries.info/2016/05/30/code-of-ethics-1115-web-version/
http://zinelibraries.info/2016/05/30/code-of-ethics-1115-web-version/
https://n2t.net/ark:/83024/d4hq3s42r
http://hdl.handle.net/11213/14582
https://sites.google.com/view/cataloging-ethics/home
https://sites.google.com/view/cataloging-ethics/home
https://www.loc.gov/bibframe/
https://www.loc.gov/bibframe/


58. Andrew Woods, “Linked Data for Libraries (LD4L) Gateway,” October 2, 2020,
https://wiki.lyrasis.org/display/ld4lGW.

59. Lihong Zhu, “The Future of Authority Control: Issues and Trends in the Linked Data
Environment,” Journal of Library Metadata 19, no. 3/4 (2019): 233, https://doi.org/10.
1080/19386389.2019.1688368.

60. Michelle Durocher, “URIs in MARC Pilot,” August 25, 2020, https://wiki.lyrasis.org/
display/pccidmgt/URIs+in+MARC+Pilot.

61. Wikidata, “Gottardo Aldighieri,” December 29, 2020, https://www.wikidata.org/
wiki/Q550288.

62. ISNI-IA, “Aldighieri, Gottardo,” December 29, 2020, https://isni.org/isni/
0000000109223014.

63. VIAF, “Aldighieri, Gottardo,” December 29, 2020, http://viaf.org/viaf/87359638.
64. Michael Beckett, “Wikidata Pilot,” August 25, 2020, https://wiki.lyrasis.org/display/

pccidmgt/Wikidata+Pilot.
65. OCLC, “OCLC Shared Entity Management Infrastructure,” August 25, 2020, https://

www.oclc.org/en/worldcat/oclc-and-linked-data/shared-entity-management-
infrastructure.html.

66. Rebecca L. Mugridge and Kevin A. Furniss, “Education for Authority Control: Whose
Responsibility Is It?” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 34, no. 1/2 (2002): 235,
https://dx.doi.org/10.1300/j104v34n01_14.

67. A good starting place for those seeking training in authority work is the PCC NACO
training site (https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/naco/training/). Textbooks like Maxwell’s
Guide to Authority Work (Chicago: American Library Association, 2002) can also
provide a basis for the principles and practices that must be learned. Familiarizing
oneself with Descriptive Cataloging Manual instructions for name and series authority
records (DCM Z1) is also recommended (Library of Congress, “Descriptive
Cataloging Manual, Z1,” October 5, 2020, https://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/dcmz1.pdf).
Many workshops and classes are available for catalogers seeking to learn, especially
through library associations and consortia and online courses such as those offered
through Library Juice Academy.

158 R. A. WIEDERHOLD AND G. F. REEVE

https://wiki.lyrasis.org/display/ld4lGW
https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2019.1688368
https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2019.1688368
https://wiki.lyrasis.org/display/pccidmgt/URIs+in+MARC+Pilot
https://wiki.lyrasis.org/display/pccidmgt/URIs+in+MARC+Pilot
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q550288
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q550288
https://isni.org/isni/0000000109223014
https://isni.org/isni/0000000109223014
http://viaf.org/viaf/87359638
https://wiki.lyrasis.org/display/pccidmgt/Wikidata+Pilot
https://wiki.lyrasis.org/display/pccidmgt/Wikidata+Pilot
https://www.oclc.org/en/worldcat/oclc-and-linked-data/shared-entity-management-infrastructure.html
https://www.oclc.org/en/worldcat/oclc-and-linked-data/shared-entity-management-infrastructure.html
https://www.oclc.org/en/worldcat/oclc-and-linked-data/shared-entity-management-infrastructure.html
https://dx.doi.org/10.1300/j104v34n01_14.
https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/naco/training/
https://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/dcmz1.pdf

	Abstract
	Introduction
	Authority control defined
	History of authority control
	Metadata content standards for authority records
	Authorized access point
	Variant access points
	Related access points
	Associated attributes
	Source information

	Metadata encoding standards for authority records
	How authority control is used in libraries
	Local authority databases
	Cooperative authority databases

	Automated authority control
	Importance of authority control
	Beyond the library catalog
	Authority control for archives
	Digital collections and institutional repositories

	Issues and trends
	Authorized access points as facets
	Linked data
	Federated authority databases
	Ethical authority control practice

	Into the future
	Conclusion
	Orcid