We seem to have fruit salad ("talking about apples and oranges") of
responses on this topic. Let's see if we can clarify some of the organs.
The following is in reference to John Hostage's post which follows below
1. 188.8.131.52 Fuller Form of Name
"If neither the date of birth nor the date of death of the person is
available to distinguish one access point from another (see 184.108.40.206), add
a fuller form of the persons name."
Certainly an RDA trainer's comment would be appreciated, but it's simply
illogical and counterproductive (e.g. time is money) to "assume" 220.127.116.11
means "Do everything humanly possible to find dates *before* you use any
other information readily available (as on the item being cataloged) to
create a qualifier."
Could we perhaps "assume" the presence of the word "readily" as in "If
neither ... is *readily* available ..."? It's only logical!
2. Dates are not "available" unless their source is cited.
3. The proscribed "optional addition" is irrelevant here, since the
"fuller form" qualifier came *before* any dates were discovered.
4. The heading for T.S. Eliot is useful, adequate and legal, and perhaps
better without the *dates". What was not necessary was possibley the work
that went into deriving the last 670 that provides the dates and certainly
the addition of the dates to the heading based on that last 670.
We simply can't be expected to be running around looking for dates or
recording them after-the-fact *just to change already existing headings*
that do not conflict with other headings. It is expensive, confusing, and
surely not the intention of RDA. Show me the RDA rule that says "If dates
ever become available a preexisting heading with other qualifier(s) must
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, John Hostage wrote:
> 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 18.104.22.168 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.
John G. Marr
Univ. of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
**There are only 2 kinds of thinking: "out of the box" and "outside
Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.