maybe we have different versions, but my copy of AACR2 says:
"Optionally, add the dates to *all* personal names, even if there is
no need to distinguish between headings." [emphasis on ALL is mine]
That isn't the same as "add to some, if convenient." So it's the LCRI,
not the cataloging rules, that establish this, and I think that in
terms of metadata practice it is not a good one. It creates a data
element that is ambiguous in its meaning.
Quoting Manon Theroux <[log in to unmask]>:
> Not at all. The rules have been in place for a long time.
> AACR2 22.17A says:
> "Optionally, add date(s) to any personal name, even if there is no
> need to distinguish between headings."
> The LCRI says:
> "Apply the optional provision. This means adding a date whenever it
> is known."
> For LC/NACO participants, this applies when establishing a heading in
> an authority record for the first time. There are additional
> instructions on when it is permissible to add dates to
> already-established headings.
> I realize this is getting away from the dates as "information" in 046
> vs. dates as "identification" in 100$d aspect of the discussion, but
> it is worth getting straight.
> Manon Théroux
> Head of Technical Services
> U.S. Senate Library
> SR-B15 Russell Senate Office Building
> Washington, DC 20510-7112
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> It sounds to me like LC has kind of changed the meaning of the $d
>> by including
>> dates when they aren't necessary for identification.
>> Quoting "Guenther, Rebecca" <[log in to unmask]>:
>>> It is not correct that dates are only added to distinguish between similar
>>> names. It has long been LC policy that birth dates are added if readily
>>> available when establishing a name (and death dates when available), NOT
>>> just to break a conflict. Which means that a large number of name headings
>>> have birth dates. Institutions participating in the cooperative programs
>>> (NACO/PCC) are required to do this.
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net