Thank you for the input. That was the exact purpose of my changing the
authority record (well, we do have the person in question in our local
database too), that and demonstrating the flexibility of the authority
file with an example. See also following.
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010, Adam L. Schiff wrote:
> The record as revised by John is not the correct AACR2 heading for this
The person was assigned 2 different headings, each considered "correct"
at the time they were established. The correct procedure would thus be to
chose which technically "correct" heading to retain and which to discard.
In this case (and on this specific point), the heading with the middle
initial reflects a current preference by the author and is a "fuller" form
of name (contain three elements rather than 2).
> The author was already established with a date. Dates take precedence
> over the addition of titles to break a conflict. "Jr." is only added if
> neither date nor fuller form of name is available.
The author was also established as "Jr." (to break a conflict),
apparently because LC did not know about the relationship of the date to
> (Note also that the LC cataloger neglected to include the period at the
> end of Jr., which should have been in the heading to begin with).
Got it, I'll fix it. Wondered if someone would notice it. I notice that
it took 1.5 years to catch it, so I do not feel too bad. I'd prefer to
make this another example of the value of the flexibility of the online
file, which can be tweaked at any time by anyone (well, almost).
> Since the author was already established in a valid AACR2 form with a date,
> that heading should have been left alone
The facts that the later name seems to represent a conscious preference
by the author allows its acceptance in lieu of the name used by the
publisher of the undergraduate student's work. Routinely, earlier records
are preferably retained, but the system would not allow the heading on the
earlier record to be changed as long as another record with the
author-preferred heading existed at the same time.
> I suppose the form with the Jr. could have also been given as a 4XX, but
> I doubt that most of us would do that.
There seems to be a ground-swell of support for doing it, when useful,
and "cataloger's prerogative" and Mike Tribby's quote of policy would seem
to allows it. Otherwise, it's a "trick", but the 4XX $w nne structure
allows it to happen as well.
> Based on predominance of a later form, it would have been acceptable to
> change the authorized heading to Benjamin, James J., $d 1965-
Predominance of the later form did result in selection of it as the most
appropriate heading. I believe the rules do allow [!] such headings to be
changed (here, "Jr." to "1965- "), since other things were changing as
well. The change was considered, but the established form was retained,
partly because it represents the exact form by which the person wishes to
be known and is known in all publications and references sources since he
became a lawyer. If deemed necessary, one could write the person to ask
for his preference (and place bets on the outcome?).
John G. Marr
Univ. of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.