Regarding question 2, I don't see why we would need to do this. Subfields $i and $w are valid in 4XX fields. The main problem is trying to use 5XX fields for all kinds of relationships, which is leading to a lot of clutter in the indexes. The MARC format was not designed for linked data. 4XX and 5XX fields were created to support access, not to provide links between entities.

------------------------------------------
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-----
>

> 2. Unused real names
>
> It also occurs to me that, in order to use these relationship designators at all
> in LC/NAF, between names, there needs to be an authorised access point
> and a NAR for all names, even if there are only two names. Does this mean
> we need to review the practice of treating the unused real name of one
> pseudonym as a 400?
>
> Old practice:
>
> 1001 |a Shute, Nevil, |d 1899-1960
> 4001 |a Norway, Nevil Shute, |d 1899-1960
>
> RDA practice:
>
> 1001 |a Shute, Nevil, |d 1899-1960
> 5001 |w r |i real identity |a Norway, Nevil Shute, |d 1899-1960
>
> 1001 |a Norway, Nevil Shute, |d 1899-1960
> 5001 |w r |i alternate identity |a Shute, Nevil, |d 1899-1960
>
> Has PCC considered this point?
>
>