If one encounters:
     an AACR2 personal name authority record
     lacking a 667 field, and
     based on a paper thesis
  and the cataloger:
     has a "publication" in hand by the same person
     and is adding an 053 field and an additional 670 field
  should the authorized access point be:
    changed to represent the author's name-preference for publications
      (presumed to eventually become consistent)
    or should the presumed "one-off" thesis representation be retained?

  Another question: some time ago it was said that the rule to NOT provide 
known fuller forenames as qualifiers to names with forename initials (when 
there is no conflict otherwise) was going to be eliminated. Has this gone 
anywhere? Incidentally, "known" includes presence in preexisting AACR2 
"compatible" headings being changed to RDA authorized access points.

Thanks!

jgm

  John G. Marr
  Cataloger
  CDS, UL
  Univ. of New Mexico
  Albuquerque, NM 87131
  [log in to unmask]
  [log in to unmask]

     ** Forget the "self"; forget the "other"; just
consider what goes on in between. **

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