Recently at LC, Barbara Tillett, chief of CPSO, gave a fascinating public presentation on RDA development and FRBR models. It was recorded for posting to the LC web site--we will make an announcement when it's available.
One of the fascinating things I made notes of was a question and answer discussion about this very topic. It appears that, even though a heading may represent more than one person, further refinement within the bibliographic framework could provide a form of differentiation based on topics about which each person published.
>>> "Lasater, Mary Charles" <[log in to unmask]> 5/20/2008 6:45 AM >>>
Richard & All,
I do understand the role for maintenance of the undif. ar's but hope that those of you using them this way would consider the possibility of establing unique AR;s under three choices: 1. Li, Ling $c 01
2. Li, Ling,$c Author of Shu tzu wei po t?ung hsin chung ti wei po t?iao hsiang ch?i. or
Another possibility is extending the use of 'music type qualifiers' or use pre 20th century techniques for distinguishing names to 20th century and current names, so perhaps 3. Li, Ling, $c fl. 1981 (If I could read this title I might use a 'profession' or field of interest $c)
The reason I like my second option above is that it means I do the same work that I currently do to the set up the undif. heading AND I can look at the $c and see what work was involved when I search. With the 01 option I have to take another step and view the entire authority record. The third option has been rejected before because people change fields or emphasis but that should also be reconsidered (quickly) in light of the web based tools and the techniques that are now common there.
Chinese names are some of the most difficult and when the Chinese authority records were made available it was really clear that we need 'progress'. It is very frustrating to see a 'unique' heading there and have to add another entry to a very long NACO authority record.
I appreciate the many comments on this topic. It is clear that I am not the only person bothered by theese. We need a more efficient solution sooner instead of later.