Print

Print


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]           *
> **************************************