I think Adam had it right. LCRI 22.3A says, "If an established heading
is already coded "AACR2" and subsequently received items show forms in
the chief source that vary in fullness, generally do not change the
established heading."
I have seen no reference to so-called "cataloger's prerogative" in the
NACO documentation. But I do think the idea of primary elements (LCRI
26.2) should be expanded to include the first letter of the second
forename to accommodate derived searching in OCLC, for oldtimers like me
who still remember it.
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Hostage Authorities Librarian
Langdell Hall [log in to unmask]
Harvard Law School Library +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
Cambridge, MA 02138 +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
http://www.law.harvard.edu/library/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 17:56
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] duplicate records caused, in part by our rules
>
> The record as revised by John is not the correct AACR2 heading for
this
> person. 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. (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).
>
> Since the author was already established in a valid AACR2 form with a
> date, that heading should have been left alone, and a reference from
> the
> form of name with middle initial AND DATE (not Jr.) could have been
> added
> to it if deemed helpful to users. 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.
>
> Based on predominance of a later form, it would have been acceptable
to
> change the authorized heading to Benjamin, James J., $d 1965- but the
> form in n 2008056697 is not the valid AACR2 form given the information
> we
> have available. I think the earlier authority should have been
> retained
> and the one created in 2008 deleted - the cataloger at LC who created
> this
> record should have found the already existing one in the authority
file
> and used that.
>
|