At 11:09 AM 12/4/2006, Kristin Martin wrote:
>A. Update the 550 note with the new version of the name, update the 710
>and simply remove all traces of the old version of the name.
>B. Update the 550 note with the new version of the name, but also state
>that from <2003-2006> it was called the [old form of name], and update the 710.
>C. Update the 550 note with the new version of the name, but also state
>that from <2003-2006> it was called the [old form of name], leave old 710
>AND add 710 for new form of name.
>My feeling is that option A is best. IR records should reflect the most
>current iteration of a resource, and information on name changes is better
>served in authority records than in the bibliographic record. Having two
>added entries for the same corporate body also seems like overkill. Thoughts?
I believe that option A is the worst of three options. Option C is the
best. It is always best to retain information that was correct at one time
and may exist in citations for the resource. Keeping the note, as well as
the access point, will allow users to find the resource and verify that it
is (or, perhaps, is not) the one they're looking for.
It is very common for serial records to have multiple access points for the
same corporate body, when that body has had name changes. In this way,
integrating resources are just like serials.
Authority records are not intended at all to serve as substitutes for
*bibliographic* histories that belong in bibliographic records.
Kevin M. Randall
Head of Serials Cataloging
Northwestern University Library
1970 Campus Drive
Evanston, IL 60208-2300
email: [log in to unmask]
phone: (847) 491-2939
fax: (847) 491-4345