I don't see anything in RDA that says T.S. and Thomas Stearns are equally full, and the LCRI that claimed that disappeared a while ago. It seems pretty clear what is meant by fuller form in RDA. The sad part is that with the recent PCC decision, all that unnecessary verbiage will continue to show up in many access points.
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 Stephen Hearn
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 15:00
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Revised LC-PCC Policy for Fuller form of name
> (188.8.131.52, option)
> The ambiguity here is between judging the "fuller" of two forms (T.S.
> and Thomas Stearns are considered equally "full") and the "fuller"
> form qualifier for an abbreviated or inadequate name element (e.g., T.
> S. $q (Thomas Stearns) or John $q (John Arthur)). In most contexts it's
> the latter that is intended. Minor paradox: the equivalent fullness of
> T.S. and Thomas Stearns justifies the use of Thomas Stearns as the
> fuller form qualifier for T.S.
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:41 PM, john g marr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Feb 2013, Moore, Richard wrote:
> >> cf. AACR2 22.18A:
> >> "The most common instances of such additions occur when the heading
> >> as prescribed by the preceding rules contains initials and the
> >> spelled out form is known. Less common instances occur when known
> >> forenames, surnames, or initials are not part of the heading as
> > AACR2 never really defined "fuller form". except by example, after
> > declaring that examples should be considered "illustrative and not
> > prescriptive."
> > Half of the examples under 22.18A represent the addition of true
> > "fuller forms."
> > I got incredibly used to LC's precise definition in their LCRI for
> > 22.3A before they canceled the LCRI for other reasons. It was simply
> > "When determining the fullest form for a person who uses both
> > forename initials and forenames, make no distinction between initials
> > and forenames, e.g., 'B.E.F. Pagen' is fuller than 'Bernard Edward