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.