I would like to add this discussion that the difference
in dates in particular is certainly based on the fact that only *one* of
them is correct. If that one can be determined by research, then it is
the one used in the X00s. The discarded choice may always be carried
as 670 information. After all, they're usually close in the file (e.g.
1835 vs. 1836) and the curious cataloger will be searching by the name
and discover the information when selecting the hdg. that was close. As
in ... "Maybe this is my person after all". I would wager that a patron
would merely be confused.
As I harken back to our NACO training when this situation came up
... Our trainer pointed this problem out in particular and gave me a
phrase I always call to mind.
"One of these is a mistake. It is not traced because in the
authority file we do not memorialize (i.e., create a 4XX) mistakes."
Please feel free to do whatever you like locally. Personally, I
prefer a leaner look to authority records. MORE is not necessarily
BETTER. Frequently more is just more.
The other time when a slightly different albeit related situation
occurs is with hdgs. constructed based on CIP data. If, when the book
appears, one determines that the hdg. was incorrectly established based on
faulty galley info., one changes the 1XX, but one does "memorialize" the
incorrectly formulated hdg. by honoring with a 4XX since it never really
THAT SAID--- I do agree that in the machine manipulation of
hdgs. in authority processing, it is unfortunate that we frequently are
unable to make the x-ref. that would expedite such activity. However,
there is the down side of having excessively long authority records.
While this might occur less frequently with personal hdgs., it could be a
real drag on searching too.
Richard C. Amelung (314) 977-2743
Head of Technical Services Fax: (314) 977-3966
Saint Louis University Law Library
3700 Lindell Blvd. E-mail: [log in to unmask]
St. Louis, Missouri 63108