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.
> -----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
> 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]>
> > It sounds to me like LC has kind of changed the meaning of the $d by
> > 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
> >> names. It has long been LC policy that birth dates are added if
> >> available when establishing a name (and death dates when available),
> >> just to break a conflict. Which means that a large number of name
> >> have birth dates. Institutions participating in the cooperative
> >> (NACO/PCC) are required to do this.