We are having a friendly debate about whether it is still acceptable to modify an existing authorized access point for a person to resolve a conflict when you have no distinguishing information that can be added to the AAP for the new person you are establishing.
The new guidelines on undifferentiated names say that instead of creating an undifferentiated name record "
apply one of the following RDA attributes to create a unique authorized access point for the **person being established**" [emphasis mine]
Our new person has the same name as the existing person and we can find no life dates, fuller forms, titles, other designations, etc. Both authors write fiction so we can't use an occupation like "writer of fiction."
We have dates for the person already established, however PS 18.104.22.168 says not to add dates unless otherwise changing the AAP. It doesn't mention conflict in this particular PS like it does in 22.214.171.124.6 and 126.96.36.199.
We just want to be sure the new instructions on undifferentiated names don't disallow changing an already established AAP in cases such as this.
Ryan J. Finnerty
Head, Database and Authorities Management | NACO Coordinator
UC San Diego Library | Metadata Services
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | (858) 822-3138