I think I was misunderstood. "Personal names" aren't born and don't die, people do.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Metadata Object Description Schema List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 1:01 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [MODS] MADS/RDF for review
> 
> Dates are included in the heading when known at the time the heading
> is established. Except for adding a death date to an open date or
> acting to break a conflict, there's no provision in LC/NACO rules for
> adding a date to an already established heading when the date turns up
> later, though the date may be added in a 670 note, and now in a 046
> field.
> 
> While Karen is correct that dates embedded in 670s are not easy to
> extract and identify, most of the dates in $d would be much easier to
> parse. Has there been any consideration of copying the $d dates
> algorithmically to the new 046 to make them more accessible as
> information, as Karen notes? That could prompt a redistribution of a
> lot of LCNAF records, but would not affect any bib headings.
> 
> Stephen
> 
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> > To be fussy, the wording is odd. This says the date(s) are being
> added to the "personal name". This makes it sounds like they are
> properties of the name rather than the thing being named. Taking this
> wording literally would result in an exotic model.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Metadata Object Description Schema List
> >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Manon Theroux
> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 11:22 AM
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Re: [MODS] MADS/RDF for review
> >>
> >> Not at all. The rules have been in place for a long time.
> >>
> >> AACR2 22.17A says:
> >> "Optionally, add date(s) to any personal name, even if there is no
> >> need to distinguish between headings."
> >> The LCRI says:
> >> "Apply the optional provision.  This means adding a date whenever it
> is
> >> known."
> >>
> >> For LC/NACO participants, this applies when establishing a heading
> in
> >> an authority record for the first time. There are additional
> >> instructions on when it is permissible to add dates to
> >> already-established headings.
> >>
> >> I realize this is getting away from the dates as "information" in
> 046
> >> vs. dates as "identification" in 100$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.
> >> >
> >> > kc
> >> >
> >> > 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.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
> Technical Services, University Libraries
> University of Minnesota
> 160 Wilson Library
> 309 19th Avenue South
> Minneapolis, MN 55455
> Ph: 612-625-2328
> Fx: 612-625-3428