Where to finish?

  At some point it became acceptable under AACR2 to change "compatible" 
headings to AACR2 headings. In the process, it ought not be "allowable to 
carry over" undocumented qualifying data. In most cases I've seen, all 
that's necessary to justify such data is to write a 670 referencing 
pre-AACR2 LC headings (not that difficult), so why not do it?

  I've been seeing a lot of reasonably qualified headings being being 
revised lately with dates being substituted for the previous (usually $c) 
qualifier. I'm thinking that (indeed not the case here) is unnecessary.

  I'd suggest that, if an AACR2 heading is acceptable as "adequate" in RDA, 
it should be left alone. If a pre-AACR2 heading is not acceptable in RDA, 
it should be changed. The idea is to mitigate the need for wholesale 
reviewing of AACR2 headings. After all, they serve the purpose intended in 
most cases, and that should be the determining factor.

Cheers!

jgm

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, John Hostage wrote:

> Where to start?
>
> 1. The machine-readable authority record for Black was created over 30 years ago from a manual record with the same (pre-AACR2) heading it has today, including dates.  The fact that it was created from a manual record can be deduced from the fact that the LCCN starts with "n 50".  The original form of the MARC NAR had no fields higher than 100.  Nobody said it's necessary to do everything humanly possible to find the dates; they were already there.
>
> 2. It is certainly desirable to cite the source for dates, but it has always been considered sufficient justification to carry them over from older authority records.
>
> 3. You lost me here.  Both the dates and the full form of the name have been there since the beginning.
>
> 4. The dates for Eliot have been part of the heading as long as there has been a MARC record.  The last 670 was added to the record in 2004.  Personal opinions about whether the access point would be better without the dates are irrelevant here because the policy is that the dates are added when available (at the time of establishing or modifying the access point).  By the same token, the current policy is that fuller forms are not added unless necessary to break a conflict.
>
> There is no rule that says an access point has to be changed if dates are found later, but that isn't the case here, so it's beside the point.
>
> 5. There is no policy for creating "RDA-compatible" access points, as 
> far as I know.  It would help to know if an access point should be 
> considered de novo when converting to RDA, i.e. should additions that 
> would not currently be included be left in the access point?
>
> ------------------------------------------
> 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 14:55
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] George F. Black
>>
>>   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 my comments.
>>
>>   1.   9.19.1.4 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 9.19.1.3),
>> 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"
>> 9.19.1.4 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 be changed."
>>
>

  John G. Marr
  Cataloger
  CDS, UL
  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
the box."

Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.