I would think that this would already be allowed given that we are
permitted to change dates for factual errors. If Shaw's death date is
truly uncertain, then I would think that his dates could be changed since
the firm death date would then be a matter of erroneous information.
Adam L. Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 685-8782 fax
[log in to unmask]
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Mike Tribby wrote:
> Mention has been made of at least inputting death dates on NARs for
> significant persons, Princess Diana being a named example. While I think
> adding death dates is an important pursuit and surely a strategy that will
> please--even if it doesn't further enable--catalog users, it seems to me
> that we need to either do it for all or none at all. If Princess Di is
> significant, then so is the former Bianca Jagger who also became famous more
> for her associations and liasons than for any other reason. I mean no
> disrespect to the late Princess, but I wish to point out that significance
> is hardly an attribute that can easily be assessed with unanimity.
> While we're on the subject of changing headings so the public will see what
> they expect and want to see, do we have any sentiment for changing this
> venerable heading:
> Shaw, Bernard,$d1856-1950
> Shaw, George Bernard,$d1856-1950?
> The latter form is, after all, what most catalog users would probably expect
> to find, were they looking up items related to GBS. Once we open the gates
> to changing NARS to fit patrons' perceptions, how far are we willing to go?
> Mike Tribby
> Senior Cataloger
> Quality Books Inc.
> The Best of America's Independent Presses
> mailto:[log in to unmask]