Dear PCC:

   This might look to some of you on this list like beating a dead horse, 
but CPSO/PCC/NACO will be doing that, not us, so the more said the better. 
As Hal Cain wrote: "I think the nature of the document [thesis] is 
relevant, and if the LCRI is to be reviewed, some guidance would be 

> Laurence Creider wrote (in part):
>> The problem with hanging an interpretation of AACR2's sources for choosing 
>> the fullness of name on a distinction between "publication" and "thesis" is 
>> that the code makes no such distinction.

> And Adam L. Schiff wrote:

>> with ... theses being created in ... electronic forms ... and with 
>> AACR2 saying to consider all remote access electronic resources to be 
>> published ... there's another argument against treating theses 
>> differently from other resources ... they will no longer be considered 
>> manuscript material.

    The definition of "publication" was once simple to understand. At that 
time it was simple to identify theses as not being publications.  A 
semantic "short-cut" argument was developed informally for exempting 
theses from name authority guidelines by saying that theses were not 
publications.  The definition has been expanded by online "publishing" 
[problematic in itself] which only prevents the verbal "short-cut" from 
being applied any more.

   This leaves those of us who find theses [and other "manuscripts"] 
troubling in NACO work having to hang the concept on expanded verbiage. 
Theses present name authority problems that complicate NACO work [which 
exempting them could alleviate], and LCRIs cover issues raised internally 
at LC (rarely involving theses) but NACO libraries working under different 
conditions (e.g. access to databases where previous catalog records for 
unestablished authors already exist) are required to follow the LCRIs.

   ASIDE:  Another complication of this situation, of course, is that 
actual "manuscripts" [e.g., Dead Sea Scrolls?) are being digitized so that 
the concept of "manuscript" itself will either have to be revised 
[recommended] or abandoned.  Perhaps an alternative descriptor will be 
required, but abandonment will create problems of its own.

On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 [log in to unmask] wrote:

> What I was getting at ... was the notion "If the forms of a name vary in 
> fullness, choose the form most commonly found" ...

   Yes, and the form of name appearing on a thesis is understood to not be 
likely to be an author's "most commonly found" form of name unless it is 
the only form found.

> We're used to counting ... the frequency of forms of name in the 
> database we're cataloguing against.

   Yes, and NACO folks work in different databases that do LC folks, so LC 
rules may be problematic for NACO determinations.

>  But from the reader's point of view "most frequently found" is also a 
> function of how widely circulated the documents are.

   Yes, the wider the circulation, the more forms may appear, except in LCs 
database where determinations are made the 1st time the name appears and 
where theses (and digital materials as well?) are rarely cataloged.

> I certainly wasn't saying that theses are of no significance in 
> formulating a name ... I didn't comment ... earlier stage ... discussion 
> [of] the choice between forms of name found on two theses by the same 
> person.

   If the only works being cataloged are theses, and the names appearing on 
each are equally full by number of elements (e.g., Robert Lawrence 
Wuretzel and R. L. Wuretzel), one can "establish" in either form, although 
a preference for the work-in-hand (just as at LC) could be applied. 
Another useful trick is to make the statistically justifiable assumption 
that the author will express a preference for the less "complete" full 
form in her/his publications, and go with "Wuretzel, R. L. (Robert 

>  I'm not arguing that in considering "most frequently found" we go 
> so far as to count the holdings in OCLC.

   Which process makes NACO work unique distinct from LC work.

> Some ... institutions have ... rules for names on theses which are 
> completely artificial and don't reflect an author's choice of usage (nor 
> should we suppose that publishers invariably seek out the author's 
> choice -- )

   The challenge, then, is to write a rule that is not "artificial" while 
explicitly stating that the form of an author's name appearing on a thesis 
ought not be considered part of a group of "common" or "preferred" forms 
and thus authority records based upon theses should remain "provisional" 
until more data is available.

> It is definitely the practice for LC to change an established form [if] 
> a person clearly seeks a change.

   It is also an acceptable practice to change a heading once an author 
develops a preferred usage, so simply adding to the rule that it is 
explicitly OK to revise headings based on theses when later works are 
encountered would help.

                                             John G. Marr
                                             CDS, UL
                                             Univ. of New Mexico
                                             Albuquerque, NM 87131
                                             [log in to unmask]
                                             [log in to unmask]

         **"I really like to know the reasons for what I do!"**
                                             Martha Watson

Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.