LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST  February 2000

PCCLIST February 2000

Subject:

Re: Dates on personal name headings

From:

"Jacobs, Jane W." <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 7 Feb 2000 12:12:38 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (150 lines)

In my opinion, this suggestion is eminently sensible and would serve both
customers and librarians well.
JJ

Jane Jacobs
Assist. Coordinator, Catalog Div.
Queens Borough Public Library
89-11 Merrick Blvd.
Jamaica, NY 11432

*******************************************
The opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent
those of the Queens Library.
*******************************************




-----Original Message-----
From: D. Brooking [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 9:44 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Dates on personal name headings


Dear PCClist:


I would like to present an idea to the catalogers assembled here.

****
A version of this message has already been posted to Autocat. I sincerely
apologize for any duplication, but I thought that this list would have a
high proportion of people actually doing name authority records and I did
want to make sure I got comments from PCC members and maybe reach some
that are not subscribed to Autocat.
*******

Now that we are in a new century, it might be a good time to reconsider
how we use dates in name headings.

Right now AACR2 22.17 recommends using dates to distinguish identical
names, or, optionally, to include dates whenever they are known. LCRI
22.17 says to apply the optional provision, that is, add a date or dates
whenever they are known.

Both AACR2 and the LCRI make a distinction between names for persons who
are dead (or presumed dead) and persons who are living (or presumed
living) *at the time the name heading is created.* LCRI 22.17 is even more
explicit, making a distinction between "twentieth century persons" and
"pre-twentieth century persons." Now that we are moving into the
twenty-first century, I would like to reconsider the usefulness of this
distinction.

First let us admit that we often don't really know who is living and who
is dead anyway. We are making assumptions. For example (these examples are
fictitious),

Smith, John, 1921-1988.

We know that this person was born in 1921 and died in 1988, so we include
both dates since they are known to us.

Carter, Sara, 1934-

We know that this person was born in 1934. That is all we know. And she
could still be alive (and was presumably alive close to the time her work
was published). So as a twentieth century person who could theoretically
still be alive, we use a dash.

Bell, Jim, b. 1855.

We know that this person was born in 1855. But that is all we know, and
since it is unlikely he is still alive, we say "b. 1855." But technically,
we don't know that he is dead, we just assume that it is so.

Gregory, Mary, d. 1981.

We know that this person died in 1981. We don't know when she was born,
but we do not say "-1981", we say "d. 1981" no matter what century she is
from.

And it is LC's policy not to add birth or death dates to a name heading
already coded for AACR2.

In my opinion the use of the open-ended birth date creates a couple of
problems.

1. Catalog users (including other, non-cataloger librarians) expect these
dates to be biographically accurate, that is, when someone dies, they
think surely this information will be updated. The use of the hyphen
encourages people to think this way--the format is definitely misleading.

2. The original purpose of the distinction between b. DATE and DATE- (that
is, living vs. non-living persons) is lost as time goes on. In the not too
distant future we will no longer be able to presume that the "twentieth
century persons" LCRI 22.17 refers to can all be still alive. Headings
like

Vidmar, Josip, 1895-
Schmitt, Carl, 1888-

and so on, no longer represent living persons. Though their death dates
are known in these cases, they will not be added to the headings because
of present policy. And for the vast majority of names with open birth
dates, we will never run across the death dates.

I cannot imagine how catalogers would be able to systematically track all
names with open birth dates in order to research and supply the
individually appropriate death dates as they occurred. Adding death dates
does not count as a practical solution in my mind, unless we really intend
to systemically "kill off" a *significant* proportion of the
"bibliographically undead" (and assuming this can be achieved without a
lot of costly research effort).

However, as we continue to establish names over the years, we (and our
users) will know that it would be unlikely for persons to live to be 150,
200 years old and so on. Think what headings like "Jones, Mary, 1885- "
will look like in another 60 years! (Or even what "Brown, John, 1961- "
will look like 200 years from now.)

I would like to propose that maybe a change be made to AACR2 22.17. That
is, just as when only the death date is known, regardless of the century,
we use "d. DATE", we should also use "b. DATE" for cases where only the
birth date is known for whatever reason--because the person is still alive
(and therefore eventual death date is unknown), or because we don't have
the information about the death date, regardless of any presumption about
whether the person is still living. Since we know in most cases we will be
unable to go back and add a death date anyway, why use the open-ended dash?
Surely we expect to create a few more centuries' worth of name headings,
why continue using open birth dates? Maybe starting now, we should
establish new name headings with "b. DATE".

And while I would argue against adding death dates to open birth dates as
an incomplete/unpractical maintenance solution, changing "DATE-" to "b.
DATE" could be done automatically by a machine flip to retrospectively
"correct" headings already created with open birth dates.

What do people think? If it seems like there is some kind of consensus in
the cataloging community about the need for a change to 22.17 and how we
should change it, I would offer to write a rule change proposal to CC:DA.

************
Diana Brooking             (206) 543-8405
Cataloging Librarian       (206) 685-8782 fax
Suzzallo Library           [log in to unmask]
University of Washington
Box 352900
Seattle WA  98195-2900

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager