Adam

I am ;-) It was my intention that these designations be Core, and added
in all cases, to make it clear to the user that the access point was not
for a real, human entity, and to make the access points consistent in
form with the corresponding LCSH, until it becomes feasible to cancel
the latter. That's what the Core statement at 9.6 conveyed in the
original draft.

However, the proposal was amended by JSC, so that these designations are
only Core to distinguish. If this causes issues in practice then I hope
it can be revisited. That change also leaves us unable to add such a
designation to a name that is unique, but does not convey the idea of a
fictitious or legendary character.

For example, if there is only one creator/contributor called "Socks", I
don't think we can have "Socks (Cat)", as the name is unique (and "Cat"
is not an occupation). At the very least we'd need an LC-PCC-PS to go
beyond the Core requirement.

Regards
Richard 

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: 13 February 2013 22:32
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] [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
>>>
>>
>