Actually, this was the first idea that occurred to me as well, for all the reasons set out below. However, I believe that the filing and collocation problems in local systems speak against this approach at this time. --Louise ____________________________ Louise Ratliff Social Sciences Cataloger UCLA Library Cataloging Center (310) 825-8642 --On Friday, July 01, 2005 10:35 AM -0700 Adam Schiff <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Sue Wartzok wrote: > >> Another crazy idea occurs to me: perhaps we should enter dates in a >> uniform manner no matter whether a person was born more than 100 >> years ago or not--that is, enter birth dates in the form of "b. >> 1968". Such a form does not look as incomplete as "1968- ". >> > > I don't think this idea is crazy at all, in fact, it's something I've > raised in various venues from time to time too. I think using a "b." > form for all persons when only the birth date is known at the time of > cataloging would bring consistency to our catalogs and less > controversy, as it gives no implication that a person is considered > to still be alive. When both dates are known, the current practice of > giving both could still be considered and when a person dies there > would not be a need to change a heading that just has "b. <date>". > > Perhaps if there is consensus on this within the PCC, the PCC rep to > CC:DA could prepare a rule revision proposal for them (and the JSC if > it passed CC:DA) to consider. > > Adam Schiff > > ************************************** > * Adam L. Schiff * > * Principal Cataloger * > * University of Washington Libraries * > * Box 352900 * > * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * > * (206) 543-8409 * > * (206) 685-8782 fax * > * [log in to unmask] * > **************************************