Thank you for your help and citing to the rules. It makes sense to me to
move the relevant data from existing undifferentiated heading to the
newly distinct heading. It also seems logical to put the 670 from the
undifferentiated heading first and then add new 670s in the newly
distinct heading, as this is also the actual order of the pertaining
information of an particular author is occurred and recorded.
Michael Babinec wrote:
> Your scenario 2 is correct, because it puts all of the citations
> pertaining to the newly distinct heading on the new record, and just
> as importantly removes any 670s from the undifferentiated record that
> no longer apply to the people represented on that record. Leaving
> those on the undifferentiated record would make it unclear which
> heading to use.
> DCM Z1 also has information in the fixed field section at 008/32,
> including this (emphasis is mine):
> "When an undifferentiated personal name authority record is being
> revised to delete all but one name, change value "b" to "a."
> *Delete all of the other data applying to the name(s) being
> deleted from the authority record.* Also delete the bracketed
> caption for the one name remaining."
> The instruction to "delete all of the other data applying to the
> name(s)..." applies in all cases of removing a name from an
> undifferentiated record, not just when only one name is left.
> There isn't much in the documentation about how to undo an
> undifferentiated heading, but DCM Z1 at 008/32 is the most complete
> source, plus sections in DCM Z1 at 667 and the NACO participant's
> manual at 667 that talk about the "Formerly on ..." note.
> As far as the order of the 670s in the new record, I figure that we
> have some flexibility because differentiating a heading is not routine
> in the sense that DCM Z1 670 uses "routine." That said, I've always
> placed the 670s from the undifferentiated record first in the new
> record to follow the "new information follows existing information"
> The usual prohibition against messing with existing 670s is relaxed in
> the case of newly differentiated persons in order to make it clear
> which author is responsible for which works.
> Michael Babinec
> Assistant Head, Bibliographic Services Dept.
> Northwestern University Library
> Evanston, Illinois 60208
> [log in to unmask]
> At 08:29 PM 11/8/2007, you wrote:
>> When splitting an existing undifferentiated heading, which 670 should
>> be the first? The 670 taken from the existing undifferentiated
>> heading or the item in hand from which more information is found to
>> allow to differentiate the heading?
>> According to DCM Z1 670,
>> Generally, *the first **670 field* cites the work for which the
>> heading is being established, i.e., the work being cataloged*; give
>> subsequent 670 fields in any order, adding new fields after existing
>> ones. Do not routinely delete or change existing 670 fields , input
>> by LC or by a NACO participant, when adding new 670 fields.
>> So an item in hand needs to have a name heading created, after
>> searching the Authority File, a non-unique heading of the same name
>> is found. but the item in hand has the date of the author, so now it
>> is possible to take that author out of the non-unique heading and
>> make a new one.
>> Which of the following 2 scenarios is the correct work flow?
>> Scenario 1 (creating a new heading, and the work in hand should be
>> cited as the first 670)
>> 1.Work Cat I have with author's bio info
>> 2.Search for any dup info, found author in the undiff heading
>> 3.Establish hdg with bio date and use work cat as 1st 670
>> 4.add 667 "Formerly on ..."
>> and we don't need to transfer 670s from the existing non-unique
>> heading unless they add more info.
>> Scenario 2 (updating an existing heading, and adding new 670s after
>> the exiting 670s)
>> 1. Work Cat has author's bio info
>> 2. search authority file and found author in the undiff. heading,
>> 3. delete pair of 670 in undiff. heading, and transfer the 670 data
>> to the new heading
>> 4. then add a 670 citation for the item in hand that gave the info to
>> differentiate this name
>> 5. add 667 "Formerly on ..."
>> Also are there any instructions/rules on how to split a undiff.
>> heading? How should we interpreter "T*he first **670 field* cites
>> the work for which the heading is being established, i.e., the work
>> being cataloged*" and the "Do not routinely delete or change existing
>> 670 fields , input by LC or by a NACO participant, when adding new
>> 670 fields" ?
>> Your help is much appreciated.
>> JIANG Shuyong, Ph.D.
>> Coordinator, CJK NACO Project
>> Assistant Professor
>> Chinese Studies Librarian/Cataloging Coordinator
>> Asian Library
>> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>> Phone: 217-244-3669
>> Fax: 217-333-2214
>> Email: [log in to unmask] < mailto:[log in to unmask]>