I saw the following cancelled record come through. See the last part of the second 667. I thought that was a bit ambiguous, but helpful.
001: n 50008544
008: 800331n| acannaabn |n aaa
010: $an 50008544
040: $aDLC $beng $cDLC $dCSt $dCSt $dSaPrUSA $dIEN $dDLC $dUk
100: 1 $aMoser, Hugo
667: $aTHIS 1XX FIELD CANNOT BE USED UNDER RDA UNTIL THIS UNDIFFERENTIATED RECORD HAS BEEN HANDLED FOLLOWING THE GUIDELINES IN DCM Z1 008/32
667: $aLast identity on undifferentiated record; reported for deletion in favour of nb2016013232, new record not required.
Jenifer K. Marquardt
Asst. Head of Cataloging & Authorities Librarian
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602-1641
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Lasater, Mary Charles [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 3:29 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] procedure for undifferentiated NAF when both identities previously exist
When I find a situation like this, I like to add a 667 note similar to the one on: no2010098512
Formerly included on undifferentiated name record no 96044888
I usually include 'also' so other authorities folks are even more carefully warned: Formerly also on undifferentiated authority record: no 96044888
I would remove both pairs from the undifferentiated record and if those titles don't show up on the other unique ones, move a 670 for each of those as well. I would also add the 667... Reported for deletion... to no 96044888
Thanks for asking... Maybe others have other ideas, but I spend a lot of time working with these changes each month and moving those 670's can really save me some time. Not moving them means I can waste a lot of time.
Mary Charles Lasater
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 11:55 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] procedure for undifferentiated NAF when both identities previously exist
I spent the morning trying to split an undifferentiated NAR (Ryan, Patrick, no 96044888) when I discovered that both identities in the NAR already exist in the NAF. I know I will have to report a BFM. I know that when I am creating new NARs I can edit the undifferentiated record to say it will be deleted in favor of another record. But I am not certain what to do when I have not created any records. Do I edit the undifferentiated record? Do I arbitrarily pick one of the existing records for it to be deleted in favor of? Do I edit the existing records to note the undifferentiated record number? Do I add the form of name from the undifferentiated record to the existing differentiated NARs as a 500 $w nne?
If anyone can give any pointers to handling this situation, it would appreciated.
[log in to unmask]