I don't think we should be removing $q qualifiers that expand initials. The formulation is correct in RDA, and we are not in a position to know if participants have conflicts with other name access points in their own databases. 

It seems to me also that expanding an initial for a more common name is a good thing to do, both for identification purposes and to avoid future conflicts and changes to access points. At the moment, the LC-PCC-PS for 9.19.1.4 refers only to LC practice; that is, it is an LCPS rather than a PCC-PS. Current BL practice is to apply the option selectively, and we tell our cataloguers:

'For expansions of initials, apply the option: Add expansions of initials even if not needed to distinguish between access points: Smith, J. (James) 

For unused parts of name, do not apply the option: Add unused parts of name (e.g. unused forenames) only to distinguish one access point from another: Smith, James (James Alan)".'

This mirrors the way the option was applied in AACR2 22.18A. We submitted a change proposal for the last JSC (BL/5) to do this, but withdrew it, partly because LC felt flexibility was already present in RDA to apply or not to apply the option in particular cases, and partly because such an instruction probably belongs in a PS, rather than the RDA text. We are still of the same view, and would support any proposal for a PCC-PS to say this, or at least to give cataloguers discretion. 

I agree that expansions of initials are not *necessary* for well known names such as T.S. Eliot and D.H. Lawrence, though they are not *wrong* under RDA. What we need is to be able to expand initials in non-conflicting NACO access points when useful, without feeling the need also to create potential oddities like Dickens, Charles (Charles John Huffam ), and Dalí, Salvador (Salvador Domingo Felipe Jacinto Dalí i Domènech). Hence the desirabiity of a PCC-PS.

Regards
Richard

_________________________
Richard Moore 
Authority Control Team Manager 
The British Library
                                                                        
Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806                                
E-mail: [log in to unmask]                            
 




 

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Hostage
Sent: 19 November 2012 18:12
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] George F. Black

Black, George F. $q (George Fraser) would have been the AACR2 heading, but the record was coded AACR2-compatible.  The qualifier with the fuller forms of name would not be used in the RDA record under LC-PCC PS for 9.19.1.4 which says not to apply the optional addition.  It would almost never be needed when dates are available.  I'm glad to see those qualifiers go when not needed to break a conflict; the extra verbiage clutters up the headings for people like D.H. Lawrence and T.S. Eliot.  Unfortunately, the record for Eliot has been coded RDA without removing the qualifier.

------------------------------------------
John Hostage
Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services Langdell Hall 194 Cambridge, MA 02138 [log in to unmask]
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of john g marr
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 12:42
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] George F. Black
> 
>   Based on the following (in John Hostage's post) and the information 
> currently in the authority record's only 670, the heading could be the 
> same as that under AACR2:  Black, George F. $q (George Fraser)
> 
>   There is no need to go any further, and there is no "source of 
> information" presented (in a 670) for dates nor any need to look for 
> one, or for the "fuller form" appearing anywhere in a "preferred 
> source of information."
> 
>   BROADER CAVIAT: Let's keep it simple, folks-- if RDA contains rules 
> and options that allow AACR2 practice to continue, let's just continue 
> doing what we have been doing and not try to get too fancy. Same 
> applies to other parts of bib. and authority records as well.
> 

**************************************************************************
Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/
 
The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.htm
 
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook
 
The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
 
*************************************************************************
 
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:[log in to unmask] : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.
 
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
 
*************************************************************************
 Think before you print