Richard, my follow-up question, assuming a degree was RDA compliant, was, indeed, about the correct punctuation. Under E.1.2.2 parentheses are used with other designations (although educational degrees can imply rank or honor informally-- as in the running joke on the Big Bang Theory TV series). Too bad the rule wasn't added before the Phase 2 processing when the occupations punctuation was fixed.
Thanks for the information,
Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation
Catalog & Metada Services
Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University
P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240
(203) 432-8286 [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 11:41 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Question regarding 9.19.1.7
Steven
There isn't a source in RDA for that statement. Having drafted the original RDA change proposalthat was included in RDA in July, I put that statement in the BL Guide as there seemed to be reluctance, in some quarters, to allowing post-nominal letters as qualifiers, and also because they look odd in parentheses. There's no instrinsic reason why they shouldn't be in scope for "Other Designation", or why RDA punctuation shouldn't be tweaked to allow them to be added after a comma. Hopefully someone from LC might comment on this, when they are able.
Regards
Richard
_________________________
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library
Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Arakawa, Steven
Sent: 08 October 2013 15:18
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Question regarding 9.19.1.7
I'm going over a local checklist for reviewing previously established NARs for RDA compliance.
RDA 9.19.1.7 for Other Designation, recently added to RDA, allows the cataloger to "add an appropriate designation" if none of the additions at 9.19.1.3-9.19.1.6 is sufficient or appropriate. As the BL Guide to RDA Name Authority Records notes, 9.6.1.9 and 9.19.1.7 are "intentionally broad ... to help remove the few remaining cases where an authorized access point cannot be made unique." But the Guide also states, in the commentary on 9.19.1.7: "Not allowed under this instruction are post-nominal letters that indicate academic distinctions, membership of bodies, etc. (e.g. BA, FCILIP)." Could someone point out the source in RDA for this statement? If I need to use NAR n 98800301, Sanderson, Maureen, $c Ph. D., coded as AACR2, which currently includes a 667 note, can I consider the degree as a valid qualifier under the new 9.19.1.7 instruction? Since academic degrees were frequently used to break conflicts in AACR2, I thought the 2013 rule would result in fewer non-RDA compliant AACR2 AAPs, but perhaps this is not so?
Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation
Catalog & Metada Services
Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University
P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240
(203) 432-8286 [log in to unmask]
**************************************************************************
Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/
The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook
The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
*************************************************************************
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:[log in to unmask] : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
*************************************************************************
Think before you print
|