Reading Ana's post (thanks, Ana!) and the PCC-RDA decision document
she cites, I found the arguments on this point weak, but thought I saw
a light through the fog. The decision notes that "should RDA be
implemented, .... it allows for the addition of various elements to
names to differentiate them" beyond what is allowed in AACR2 (cf. RDA
220.127.116.11-7). But then, reading the PCC Post RDA Test Guidelines
(http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/PCC-Post-RDA-Test.html), I found this:
"If an existing AACR2 authority record for a personal name is an
undifferentiated name record and there is now a date of birth, a date
of death, or a fuller form of name for the person related to the
resource being cataloged, create an RDA differentiated name authority
record for that person, remove the appropriate 670 fields from the
AACR2 undifferentiated record, and report the necessary bibliographic
file maintenance. For other situations, use the AACR2
undifferentiated authorized access point in the RDA bibliographic
record. Do not add any 7XX fields for RDA forms to the
undifferentiated AACR2 authority record."
In other words, though creation of RDA authorities in LCNAF with
occupation and field of activity qualifiers is permitted now, using
them to differentiate persons on undifferentiated personal name
authority records is not. The need to harmonize AACR2 and RDA
authorities in the LCNAF will continue after the "real" RDA
implementation. Can we expect that this restriction will be removed at
In any case, I'm puzzled by the restriction. When a date is found for
a person on an AACR2 undifferentiated authority, that person can be
established with a new differentiated RDA (or AACR2) authority and
removed from the old one. I don't see how this approved procedure
would differ in its effect on systems from establishing an
undifferentiated person on a new, differentiated RDA authority using
an occupation or field of activity qualifier, which is not allowed.
Maybe it's just the volume of these changes that is being managed by
I definitely agree with Ana that changes to authority practice should
be approached with care and circumspection. But the current practice
really is dysfunctional, and leaving it that way is resulting in more
and more data problems to clean up later. "When you find yourself in a
hole, the first thing to do is stop digging."
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Cristan, Ana Lupe <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hello John and all,
> Earlier this year John Attig sent forward a suggestion to the PCC for splitting out undifferentiated NARs into individual records and this was discussed at the OpCo meeting in May. On the PCC page there is a document called: Outcomes from the PCC Operations Committee Meeting 2011 that in turn leads to a document titled: PCC RDA Policy and Practice Decisions Needed if RDA is Adopted http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/PCC-RDA-Decisions.doc that has at
> N-4a the discussion and results of this topic.
> The PCC RDA-Decisions-Needed Task Group is already at work looking over this document and their recommendations should be out soon. Bottom line -LC/PCC is aware of the flaws in the current mechanism for handling undifferentiated names but there also has to be a measured approach and recognition of the impact of certain decisions as not all systems will be able to handle the proposed outcome with the same ease.
> I recently served on the PCC Task Group charged with looking into feasible scenarios for slicing and dicing the LC/NAF in preparation for possible re-coding of NARs for RDA implementation and yikes! we need to be VERY careful what we wish for... In the meantime have a great labor day holiday and stay safe!
> Ana Lupe Cristán
> Library of Congress
> Policy and Standards Division
> 101 Independence Ave.
> Washington, DC 20540-4305
> Tel. +1.202.707.7921
> fax +1.202.707.6629
> Email: [log in to unmask]
Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Technical Services, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
160 Wilson Library
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455