It is best to create a new record for "Hubert, Eva-Maria (Economist)."
You don't need to "convert" the existing NAR back to undifferentiated, before reporting to LC for deletion because LC can always view the LC superseded versions if needed.
The new record ensures that access points are reviewed when a library gets a report of a deleted NAR and deletes it.
I think the DCM Z1 instructions were updated later than 2016 when this record was first changed to differentiated.
Head, Cataloguing and Collection Maintenance
Concordia University Library
7141 Sherbrooke Street West, VL-301-60
Montreal, QC H4B 1R6
(514) 848-2424, ext. 7749
Fax: (514) 848-2898
[log in to unmask]
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kathie Coblentz
Sent: May 29, 2018 1:11 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] NAR n 88158546
I've taken a closer look now at the instructions in DCM Z1 008/32.
The existing NAR, n 88158546, was, as we know, formerly coded as an undifferentiated personal name record, though the coding has been changed to differentiated. My intention was to remove all the data pertaining to Eva-Maria Hüttl-Hubert, for whom I am creating a new NAR with the 667 "Formerly on undifferentiated name record n 88158546," and leave n 88158546 as the record for the economist, without changing the 100.
However, according to the DCM, an undifferentiated record should not be used for any of the identities it comprises. Instead, new differentiated records should be created for all of them, if possible, and the old NAR reported for deletion. Quoting from the Manual:
• If a differentiated NAR has *not* been created for the last identity:
• Add a 667 field to the undifferentiated NAR:
667 ## $a Last identity on undifferentiated record; reported for deletion.
• Report the undifferentiated NAR for deletion to [log in to unmask]; LC will create a new replacement NAR and delete the old NAR. In the new NAR, LC will add a 667 note and add the LCCN of the deleted NAR in field 010 subfield $z.
• If a differentiated NAR *has* been created for the last identity:
• Add that information in the 667 note on the undifferentiated record to assure that a duplicate NAR will not be created:
667 ## $a Last identity on undifferentiated record; reported for deletion in favor of [LCCN of NAR].
• Report the undifferentiated NAR for deletion to [log in to unmask]; LC will delete the NAR and add the LCCN of the deleted NAR in field 010 subfield
$z of the newly created NAR.
Either way, the formerly undifferentiated record should not remain in the authority file. But in this case, the undifferentiated code was already changed, so how do I proceed, if I'm not changing the authorized form of the name of the last remaining identity? Change the code back, and report to LC so they can create a replacement?
On reflection, perhaps I should create a new record for "Hubert, Eva-Maria (Economist)," since there is a third person in the OCLC bib files who has used "Eva-Maria Hubert," besides the two who up to now are conflated on the existing NAR. There is differentiating information available for her (DNB has her birthdate as 1983), but we have no publications by her and thus I have no reason to make an NAR for her. There still remains the question as to whether I should then "convert" the existing NAR back to undifferentiated, before reporting to LC for deletion.
Any advice here?
Kathie Coblentz | The New York Public Library Rare Materials Cataloger Special Collections/Special Formats Processing Stephen A. Schwarzman Building
476 5th Avenue, Room 313, New York, NY 10018 [log in to unmask]
My opinions, not NYPL's