My understanding of references has been that each reference should be in
full AACR2 form and that each reference has the *potential* of being the
At 02:10 PM 7/27/98 -0500, you wrote:
>fyi, we had a question come up today asking why references
>from variant dates are not made.
>100 10 Smith, Sally, $d 1636-1709
>670 Bios of all Sallies $b (Sally Smith; b. Jan 3, 1636; d.
>Jan. 3, 1709)
>670 Best of Sally Smith [SR] p1997 $b (b. Jan. 3, 1635; d.
>Jan. 3, 1709)
>what instruction(s) in the NACO documentation makes it clear
>in this situation why one does NOT make a reference from:
>400 10 Smith, Sally, $d 1635-1709
>I referred this question to my contact at LC (Joe Bartl).
>He conferred with CPSO. Everyone agrees that there is no
>specific instruction explaining NOT to make this kind of
>reference, when the only variant information is in the
>The practice is inferred from the RI for 26.2:
>Referring from Variant Forms
> 2) Trace a reference from each variant that affects the primary
elements of the name. For the
>normal, inverted heading this mean variations in all elements to the left
of the comma and in the first
>element to the right of the comma.
>That is, date information in the heading is not one of the primary elements.
>I think it would be helpful to have this stated clearly some place
>in that RI, and would recommend to CPSO to add a statement to that effect.
>A. Ralph Papakhian, Indiana University Music Library
>Bloomington, IN 47405 812/855-2970 [log in to unmask]
>co-owner: [log in to unmask]
Rosalie E. Katchen
Brandeis University Libraries
P.O. Box 9110
Waltham, MA 02254-9110
[log in to unmask]