With regard to John Wright's comments below, I would just like to reiterate that not adding the birthdate when known (preventing a future conflict and the unravelling that can happen when bibliographic records include heading which are really inappropriate, based on what is in the 670's) could lead to a different workflow. In some libraries, for example, it could be decided not to establish names until a conflict does exist, thereby making the unravelling exercise a one-time affair!
Perhaps, since the feeling about this RI appears to be strong, the RI could be changed to allow some discretionary behaviour on the part of the cataloguer, so that if there is an expected conflict in future, and the birth date is known, it could be included.
SILAS (Singapore Integrated Library Automation Services)
From: "Program for Cooperative Cataloging" <[log in to unmask]> on behalf
of "John Wright" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:30 PM
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Proposal to allow addition of dates to personal
Since it appears that the conversation is beginning to come full circle,
I want to reassert my proposal that the LCRI be modified. The option of
always adding a date if it is readily available when creating a heading
is the culprit which, as far as I can tell, caused the initial problem.
When dates are not needed to make a heading unique, they should not be
added. If the 1961- had been included in the 670, but left off the
heading for Diana, Princess of Wales and if the 1928- had been recorded
in the 670, but left off the Warhol, Andy heading, we wouldn't have to
feel embarrassed about the way the catalog looks, nor would we have to
explain why the dates are left open. In both cases, the date was NOT
needed to make the headings unique.
Let's please get to the root of the problem and quit hacking at the
John B. Wright
StarBiz - Visit http://www.starbiz.net.sg