Well, as I say, if it IS intended to be required in the authorized access point it makes the core statement at 9.6 meaningless.
The new core statement at 9.6 (other designation associated with the person) reads:
Other designation associated with the person is a core element for a Christian saint or a spirit. For other persons, other designation associated with the person is a core element when needed to distinguish a person from another person with the same name.
8.3 tells us that the core can be fulfilled *either* by recording the element as part of the authorized access point *or* by recording it as an element (e.g. in 368).
So if it's intended to be a required piece of the authorized access point, then in fact it is core under the 8.3 definition of how to fulfill the core requirement.
But since I assume the 9.6 core statement was carefully written-it's quite specific about "Spirit" and "Saint"-and it says that aside from those two the element is not core unless needed to differentiate, then I conclude that the element (except for Spirit and Saint) is not required as part of the authorized access point unless the name conflicts with another and there isn't any other way to differentiate.
Bob
Robert L. Maxwell
Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568
"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 3:32 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 2012 approved RDA proposals ... fictitious characters
Hmmmmm - I wonder if this truly was the intent of the British Library's proposal Bob. I was assuming that they would want the breed/species or term for fictitious or legendary character added for all instances of such entities. Richard Moore can comment on that (are you reading, Richard?)
;)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
[log in to unmask]
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Wed, 13 Feb 2013, Robert Maxwell wrote:
> By the way, note that aside from "Saint" or "Spirit" other designation is only core when needed to distinguish a person from another person of the same name, so "Fictitious character" does not necessarily need to be routinely added. This would apply to adding species or breed to the access point for real non-human entities as well?only required if needed to distinguish.
>
> I interpret "as applicable" in 9.19.1.2 to mean "when core", i.e. when required (Saint/Spirit) or when needed to distinguish. The current elements in 9.19.1.2a-e are all core in their particular circumstance (e.g., "e", profession or occupation, is explicitly core in 9.16 when the name consists of a phrase or appellation not conveying the idea of a person; all the titles listed under 9.4 are simply listed as "core" when dealing with the types of persons listed). But the new elements added under 9.6 are only core when needed to distinguish and I believe this carries over into the access point. Otherwise the concept of "core" is pretty meaningless.
>
> Bob
>
> Robert L. Maxwell
> Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> (801)422-5568
>
> "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 12:27 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 2012 approved RDA proposals ... fictitious
> characters
>
> An access point for a fictitious character would only be made if the character was considered a creator or contributor to the work, not if the character is just IN the work. There needs to be a statement of responsibility of some sort that says that the work is BY Dorothy Gale, for example.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Adam L. Schiff
> Principal Cataloger
> University of Washington Libraries
> Box 352900
> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
> (206) 543-8409
> (206) 685-8782 fax
> [log in to unmask]
> http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2013, Prochazka,David wrote:
>
>> It seems to me that a challenge with fictitious characters would be to determine whether a different author's use of a character's name is referring to the same character or to a different. Many authors have written about Dorothy Gale, for example, but it could become onerous to try to determine an author's intent about whether they see their character as the same Dorothy Gale as the one Baum wrote about. My gut reaction would be to avoid this slippery slope by not trying to distinguish characters who have been given the same name.
>>
>> David?
>>
>> David Proch?zka | Music/Special Materials Cataloger | The University
>> of Akron | Bierce Library 261C | Akron, Ohio 44325-1712 |
>> [log in to unmask] | 330-972-6260
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 12:10 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] [RDA-L] 2012 approved RDA proposals: changes
>> posted
>>
>> I've been lying awake thinking about these changes (don't tell me none of the rest of you do this occasionally too!), and particularly the one to do with fictitious characters. What I'm puzzling about is how in RDA we will distinguish between fictitious characters with the same preferred name.
>> In LCSH, the surname of an author is frequently used for this and added to the qualifier in a single set of parentheses, e.g.
>>
>> Jeremiah (Fictitious character : Smith)
>>
>> Alonso (Fictitious character : Shakespeare)
>>
>> Would we be able to add an author's surname to an access point for a fictitious person, and if so, under what instruction?
>>
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Adam L. Schiff
>> Principal Cataloger
>> University of Washington Libraries
>> Box 352900
>> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
>> (206) 543-8409
>> (206) 685-8782 fax
>> [log in to unmask]
>> http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013, Lasater, Mary Charles wrote:
>>
>>> Richard,
>>>
>>> Thanks so much for providing this. I ???intended??? to go through all the changes, checking for this information so you saved me lots of time.
>>>
>>> Just to be sure I understand, 1xx???s that use $c Ph.D. (i.e Boyd,
>>> Robert, Ph. D.) will need to be changed
>>>
>>> It appears that we could possible change1xx???s with M.D. to Doctor
>>> (i.e. Chen, Jun, $c M.D. )
>>>
>>> However, the last category that you mention:
>>>
>>> Nichols, Chris (Of the North Oxford Association)
>>> Independent burgess (of Nottingham)
>>>
>>> These will eventually not be ok under rda--?
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Mary Charles
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 3:00 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] [RDA-L] 2012 approved RDA proposals: changes
>>> posted
>>>
>>> With apologies for cross-posting, I'd like to thank Judy for her email below, and draw colleagues attention to two of the BL's proposals (BL/3 and BL/4), that are included in this update, and will appear shortly in the RDA text. They will greatly increase the range of qualifiers available to create unique authorised access points for personal names, and help expedite the elimination of undifferentiated NARs.
>>>
>>> This is also relevant to the decisions cataloguers take, when reviewing those NARs flagged for review under the Phase I RDA changes to LC/NAF, as many existing $c qualifiers will now be acceptable under RDA (though in some cases needing the addition of parentheses).
>>>
>>> The following kinds of qualifier will be available to distinguish personal name access points; they will also be recorded in MARC 21 field 368 in authority records, as and when institutions usethe field in personal NARs (I think LC have yet to implement subfield $d for NACO). I've reminded our own cataloguers that none should be recorded in MARC 21 field 374, as they are not Occupations. This list of potential examples is more extensive that that included in the RDA update.
>>>
>>> Terms of honour, rank or office:
>>>
>>> Wood, John, Captain
>>> Appleby, Robert, Sir
>>> Abraham, Martin, Doctor
>>> Graves, Ernest, Lieutenant General
>>>
>>> Designations for persons named in sacred scriptures:
>>>
>>> Micah (Biblical prophet)
>>> Zoram (Book of Mormon figure)
>>> Rachel (Talmudic figure)
>>> Azazael (Demon)
>>>
>>> Designations for fictitious and legendary characters:
>>>
>>> Holmes, Sherlock (Fictitious character)
>>> Aeneas (Legendary character)
>>> Hermes (Greek deity)
>>> Garu???a (Mythical bird)
>>>
>>> Designations for type, species or breed of a non-human entity:
>>>
>>> Lauder Lass (Horse)
>>> Henrietta (Cat)
>>> Skipper (Spaniel)
>>> Congo (Chimpanzee)
>>>
>>> Other designations:
>>>
>>> Woods, George (Gentleman)
>>> Jones, William (Defendant)
>>> Budd, Henry (Cree Indian)
>>> Yas??odhara?? (Wife of Gautama Buddha)
>>>
>>> RDA will also include the following as examples of "Other designations". Strictly speaking, they are really examples of Associated Institution and Place of Residence, but we were unable to get them removed from this update, so designations like this can be used in the interim as "Other designations", pending a further change proposal.
>>>
>>> Nichols, Chris (Of the North Oxford Association)
>>> Independent burgess (of Nottingham)
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Richard
>>>
>>> _________________________
>>> Richard Moore
>>> Authority Control Team Manager
>>> The British Library
>>>
>>> Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
>>> E-mail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
>>> Access [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of JSC
>>> Secretary
>>> Sent: 11 February 2013 15:06
>>> To:
>>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>> Subject: [RDA-L] 2012 approved RDA proposals: changes posted
>>>
>>> The final versions of the proposals approved by the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA during and after its November 2012 meeting have been posted on the JSC web site. See the "Sec final" documents listed in the table of new working documents<http://www.rda-jsc.org/workingnew.html> or consult a specific proposal in the constituency proposals section<http://www.rda-jsc.org/working1.html#constituency>.
>>>
>>> If you're interested in which instructions are affected by the approved proposals, a table<http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/2012RDAchanges.pdf> is available for your use. It lists the new, revised, or deleted instructions and indicates where changes were made (in the instruction, in the examples, or both); it also includes the JSC document number if you want to read the background and justification for the changes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards, Judy Kuhagen
>>>
>>> JSC Secretary
>>>
>>
>
|
