I tend to agree with John on this. Identifying authors by means of their
headings is useful, but differentiation and collocation are of primary
importance in retrieval, in my book (so to speak). If the rules allowed,
I'd qualify someone by their shoe size, rather than undifferentiate. 


Richard Moore 
Authority Control Team Manager 
The British Library
Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806                                
E-mail: [log in to unmask]                            

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of john g marr
Sent: 01 June 2010 19:46
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] a NACO question

On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Hall, Jack wrote:

> I would rather add the name to an undifferentiated record than come up

> with a |c. For one thing, the field of endeavor can change.

  It is highly probable that 99.9% of all authors writing from the 20th
century on with multiple disciplinary interests would not need $c
qualifiers relating to one of those interests because they either may
need no qualifiers or there are other qualifiers available.

   In some rare cases it might be necessary to apply qualifiers that
stretch credulity, but a simple rule allowing the changing of such
qualifiers when more practical information becomes available would
relieve a lot of stress.

   Keep in mind that these qualifiers are purposed solely to distinguish
authors from one another, not to define individual identities per se.


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

     **There are only 2 kinds of thinking: "out of the box" and "outside
the box."

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