Your scenario 2 is correct, because it puts all of the citations
pertaining to the newly distinct heading on the new record, and just as
importantly removes any 670s from the undifferentiated record that no
longer apply to the people represented on that record. Leaving
those on the undifferentiated record would make it unclear which heading
DCM Z1 also has information in the fixed field section at 008/32,
including this (emphasis is mine):
The instruction to "delete all of the other data applying to
the name(s)..." applies in all cases of removing a name from an
undifferentiated record, not just when only one name is left.
- "When an undifferentiated personal name
authority record is being revised to delete all but one name, change
value "b" to "a." Delete all of the other data
applying to the name(s) being deleted from the authority record. Also
delete the bracketed caption for the one name remaining."
There isn't much in the documentation about how to undo an
undifferentiated heading, but DCM Z1 at 008/32 is the most complete
source, plus sections in DCM Z1 at 667 and the NACO participant's
manual at 667 that talk about the "Formerly on ..."
As far as the order of the 670s in the new record, I figure that we have
some flexibility because differentiating a heading is not routine in the
sense that DCM Z1 670 uses "routine." That said, I've always
placed the 670s from the undifferentiated record first in the new record
to follow the "new information follows existing information"
The usual prohibition against messing with existing 670s is relaxed in
the case of newly differentiated persons in order to make it clear which
author is responsible for which works.
Assistant Head, Bibliographic Services Dept.
Northwestern University Library
Evanston, Illinois 60208
[log in to unmask]
At 08:29 PM 11/8/2007, you wrote:
When splitting an existing
undifferentiated heading, which 670 should be the first? The 670 taken
from the existing undifferentiated heading or the item in hand from which
more information is found to allow to differentiate the heading?
According to DCM Z1 670,
Generally, *the first **670 field* cites the work for which the
heading is being established, i.e., the work being cataloged*; give
subsequent 670 fields in any order, adding new fields after existing
ones. Do not routinely delete or change existing 670 fields , input by LC
or by a NACO participant, when adding new 670 fields.
So an item in hand needs to have a name heading created, after searching
the Authority File, a non-unique heading of the same name is found. but
the item in hand has the date of the author, so now it is possible to
take that author out of the non-unique heading and make a new
Which of the following 2 scenarios is the correct work flow?
Scenario 1 (creating a new heading, and the work in hand should be cited
as the first 670)
1.Work Cat I have with author's bio info
2.Search for any dup info, found author in the undiff heading
3.Establish hdg with bio date and use work cat as 1st 670
4.add 667 "Formerly on ..."
and we don't need to transfer 670s from the existing non-unique heading
unless they add more info.
Scenario 2 (updating an existing heading, and adding new 670s after the
1. Work Cat has author's bio info
2. search authority file and found author in the undiff. heading,
3. delete pair of 670 in undiff. heading, and transfer the 670 data to
the new heading
4. then add a 670 citation for the item in hand that gave the info to
differentiate this name
5. add 667 "Formerly on ..."
Also are there any instructions/rules on how to split a undiff. heading?
How should we interpreter "T*he first **670 field* cites the
work for which the heading is being established, i.e., the work being
cataloged*" and the "Do not routinely delete or change existing
670 fields , input by LC or by a NACO participant, when adding new 670
Your help is much appreciated.
JIANG Shuyong, Ph.D.
Coordinator, CJK NACO Project
Chinese Studies Librarian/Cataloging Coordinator
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Email: [log in to unmask]
mailto:[log in to unmask]>