Print

Print



Since this is an LC AR referring to just one record in their catalog, I think it was a thinkographical error.    But, IF there was one William Kent who was butcher, baker and candlestick maker, and three headings were established, would this be better or worse than glumping umpteen William Kents into one heading?   This is probably something we could argue for a long time without consensus, but I'd vote for disambiguation, even if it occasionally turns a person into more than one person (which is allowed by the rule for "separate bibliographic entities")

Amy

Amy H. Turner
Monographic Cataloger & Authority Control Coordinator
Duke University Libraries
Durham, NC   27708-0190
[log in to unmask]



"Deborah J. Leslie" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent by: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

09/10/2009 05:25 PM
Please respond to
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

To
[log in to unmask]
cc
Subject
[PCCLIST] Coda on using functions in headings





I just came across an authority record that, assuming a typographical error (or a thinkographical error) wasn't made, could be used as the poster-child NAR for avoiding using a person's occupation or other function in a heading.
 
n 2006008017
100 Kent, William, ǂc baker
670 Kent, William, butcher. Report of the proceedings at the General Quarter Sessions of the Peace for the county of Berks, held at Reading, January 16, 1811, 1811: ǂb t.p. (William Kent)
670 NUC pre-1956 ǂb (hdg.: Kent, William, baker, appellant)
 
 
__________________________
Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
RBMS Chair 2009-2010 | Head of Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare Library
201 East Capitol St., S.E. | Washington, D.C. 20003 | 202.675-0369
[log in to unmask] |
http://www.folger.edu