Document 1

N-2: Yes. At very least the policy should be to permit libraries to add 
these fields, but I would like to see it highly encouraged because the 
promise of RDA and of these separate fields in a Web-based environment 
will only actually be achieved if we use these elements.

N-3: Yes. 1) personal names that are lacking dates or fuller form of name 
that would be present in RDA. 2) Maybe uniform titles with language 
qualifiers that were set up under AACR2 (e.g., with two-language 
qualifiers or with "Polyglot" as qualifier).  3) Personal names with AACR2 
qualifiers that aren't used in RDA (e.g., titles associated with a person 
used to break a conflict).  4) I think a task force needs to be convened 
to look into all possible categories.

N-4: There is no LCRI 22.11A in Cataloger's Desktop.  So not sure what 
this question is about.  RDA 9.15 Field of Activity: Field of activity of 
the person is a core element for a person whose name consists of a phrase 
or appellation not conveying the idea of a person.  RDA 9.16 Profession or 
Occupation: Profession or occupation is a core element for a person whose 
name consists of a phrase or appellation not conveying the idea of a 
person.  Since these two elements are CORE in this situation, I don't see 
what the issue is - you must record the element for such a name.  I think 
it should be required to record it as a qualifier in the access point for 
the name.  Optionally it can also be recorded in the separate MARC fields 
for Field of Activity (372) or Profession/Occupation (374).

N-4a: YES. I think it is about time that we establish a unique identifier 
for each person, regardless of whether the name itself is differentiated. 
This would allow catalogers to control headings in OCLC and when one the 
headings is changed, the records would be automatically flipped.  It would 
allow different diacritics on the headings as well so that they wouldn't 
all be flipped to just one form of name by authority vendors/control 
processes.  However, it presents a few issues that also will need to be 
worked out: 1) we'd have to allow 100s on separate NARs to normalize to 
the same string - this is currently not allowed. 2) For authority 
processing by vendors, this may be one instance where it would be wise and 
helpful to include the LCCN identifier in bibliographic headings in the 
subfield $0.  Otherwise, it's not clear how a vendor would be able to 
match to the correct authority record for the person.

N-5: Yes, the guidance is helpful.  Note RDA 11.7 is a CORE element: Other 
designation associated with the corporate body is a core element for a 
body with a name that does not convey the idea of a corporate body.

N-7a: 1) Allow if needed for serial cataloging.  2) Allow but don't 
require. What would the relationship designator for this relationship be? 
Not sure if one-way or reciprocal links should be the way to do it, but 
don't we now pretty much always do reciprocal?  3) No, I think there 
should be authorities for each conference.  Makes it possible to control 
them and avoids differences in qualifiers that I've seen for the same 
conference (e.g., places given in different or incorrect forms).

N-8: If not a policy, then at least some helpful guidelines about which 
additions to use.

N-9: Easier to continue the current practice, and it's in accord with RDA 
options.  If the fuller form is not included in the access point though, 
it should definitely be recorded in the separate element (MARC 378) once 
that field is approved by MARBI.

N-10: Continue current practice in AACR2 of adding both dates and fuller 
form of initials when they are known.  Allow catalogers to use their 
judgment to apply the option to add a fuller form of name even if there is 
no need to distinguish between access points.  If not added to the access 
point, at least record it in the separate MARC field 378 once MARBI 
establishes it.

N-10a: Strongly encourage catalogers to add it.  Having it will make all 
sorts of interesting searches and limits possible that we can't do now.

N-11: My preference is to give fuller form when that information is known. 
Or allow catalogers to repeat the field, giving the short form in one and 
the longer form in the second.   I also want to see more guidance in 
documentation on recording questionable or approximate dates than is 
currently available in the MARC format, as well as when to use subfield 

N-12a: Encourage catalogers to give these fields, otherwise the promise of 
RDA will not be achieved.  Probably best to include at least the elements 
that are CORE in RDA, even if the access point itself has the additions 
recorded in the separate elements.

N-13: For elements that have potential to be added to access points to 
break conflicts, the punctuation/capitalization of the separate element 
should make it simple for on-the-fly additions to the access point.  So if 
the qualifier in the access point should be capitalized, I think the 
separate element should be.  This is why the examples in RDA are 
capitalized for the elements that are recorded when needed to distinguish 
entities that have the same name.

N-14: It would be helpful to have a policy that we all follow.  Otherwise 
it will be harder to share bibliographic records.

N-15: Just today I had a case where I needed to repeat 374 to give terms 
found in two separate sources with the URL for those sources:

374  Actor $u
374  Comedian $u

1) Probably would be helpful to have a best practice.  2-3) Probably best 
to repeat the $a unless separate $u or $v or $2 are needed.

Actually, this brings up the issue that I would like to have some best 
practice recommendations about when to give $u, $v, or $2 (that is, when 
should we use a term from a controlled vocabulary?  Does it matter that 
some vocabularies would give a term in the plural (e.g. LCSH: Actors) when 
it appears that the term in RDA ought to be in the singular?

N-16: 1) No. 2-3) Yes, but some guidance about when to choose one or the 
other would be helpful to catalogers.  See my example above in N-15. 
I gave the URL instead of saying $v Wikipedia, viewed on May 2, 2011.  Is 
one better than the other?

N-17: prefer fuller info that can be verified later on if need be.  1) 
Date of pub. would be needed to differentiate manifestations with same 
title.  Best to just give it so that it's available from the beginning. 2) 
helpful, but perhaps not so important. 3) Yes, this is important to know. 
4-5) I'd prefer the most info, but could live without pagination.  We need 
to train catalogers to make the best decisions about what to give if not 
all the bits are required.

N-18: For Field of Activity (9.15) there is guidance needed on what type 
of noun to record.  For example, which is correct?: "Stamp collector" 
(which is what is currently in RDA as an example) or "Stamp collecting". 
That is, should the activity be recorded as a class of persons type term, 
which is what would be better to add as an addition to an access point, or 
as an actual "field of endeavour, area of expertise, etc., in which a 
person is engaged or was engaged"?  In other words, do the examples in RDA 
need to be revised.  Which of these two forms of access points would we 

Lang, Peter $c (Stamp collector)
Lang, Peter $c (Stamp collecting)

I think the former rather than the latter, but in many of the test RDA 
records I was seeing terms that weren't for classes of persons.

Other examples in RDA that would need changing if a class of persons-type 
heading is not what should be recorded (possible changes given to the 
right of the arrow):

Anglo-Norman poet  -->  Poetry writing  [??]
Crow Indian chief  -->  Crow Indian chiefdom   [??]
Biblical prophet   -->  Biblical prophecy  [??]
Owner of Dance news  -->  Dance journalism
Fire-eater         -->  Fire-eating
Lesbian rights activist --> Lesbian rights activism
Charity quiltmaker -->  Quiltmaking
Paper airplane hobbyist --> Paper airplane design
Star trek fan site webmaster --> Star trek website management

1) I think we should leave this to cataloger judgment, but for me the 
dividing line really is does the person make a living doing the thing or 
not?  If not, I would say that it belongs in Field of Activity.  If yes, 
then it's a Profession/Occupation.  In case of doubt, use judgment or code 
as Field of Activity.  2) Not opposed to this, if the JSC is willing. 
Again the key issue for me is what kind of noun to record - Stamp 
collector or Stamp collecting?  Astrologist or Astrology?  Cinematographer 
or Cinematography?  3) No, this is too narrow.  Many people are known 
primarily for things that they might not be paid for (e.g. political 
activists, amateur musicians, athletes, Biblical prophets <G>).

N-20: YES, we should encourage their use and we should develop a means for 
catalogers to suggest additional terms as they encounter the need for 

N-21: YES, we should do reciprocal records with reciprocal designators. 
Here are examples I did:

130 _0 Planet of the apes (Motion picture : 1968)
500 1_ $i Motion picture adaptation of (work): $a Boulle, Pierre, $d 
1912-1994. $t Plane`te des singes 
530 _0 $i Remade as (work): $a Planet of the apes (Motion picture : 2001) 
$w r 
530 _0 $i Sequel: $a Beneath the planet of the apes (Motion picture) $w r

100 1_ Boulle, Pierre, $d 1912-1994. $t Plane`te des singes
530 _0 $i Adapted as a motion picture (work): $a Planet of the apes 
(Motion picture : 1968) $w r
530 _0 $i Adapted as a motion picture (work): $a Planet of the apes 
(Motion picture : 2001)

130 _0 Beneath the planet of the apes (Motion picture)
530 _0 $i Sequel to: $a Planet of the apes (Motion picture : 1968) $w r

130 _0 Planet of the apes (Motion picture : 2001)
500 1_ $i Motion picture adaptation of (work): $a Boulle, Pierre, $d 
1912-1994. $t Plane`te des singes 
530 _0 $i Remake of (work): $a Planet of the apes (Motion picture : 1968) 
$w r

N-22: 1) No. 2) Yes. 3) Yes

N-23: 1) Give the 4XX and allow the cataloger to give the 5XX if they 

N-24: 1) Allow but use judgment. Can catalogers give a reference with 
different additions instead of changing the 100?  2)? Since there aren't 
family names in AACR2, I don't understand this question.

N-25: No, but they should be allowed, particularly for archival/special 
collections needs.

N-26: No, as long as the information is readable and clear.  RDA examples 
are in complete sentences without abbreviations.  If other formats are 
allowable, the PCC can give some in an PCC Policy Statement.

N-27: 1) It sure would be helpful for record sharing if we all followed 
the same policies for naming expressions.

N-28: 1) Yes, I think that we want members to contribute authority records 
in which the language of cataloging is English.  I guess I don't have a 
problem with equivalent records co-existing, but it raises a lot of 
issues.  If a library adds an authority record with language of cataloging 
(040 $b) of French, then the qualifiers and notes and other words used in 
access points (e.g. approximately) will be in French.  My library will not 
be able to use that authority and we certainly don't want an 
English-language of cataloging bib. record to be linked to it.  So we 
would have to clone it into an English-language record.  Maybe this isn't 
as big an issue as I think it is, but if the PCC wants to pursue this, 
then they will need a task group and will have to carefully consider all 
of the issues, particularly as they relate to authority control.

B-1: Yes

B-2: Not sure.  There really is a need for careful training, as evidenced 
by the many odd and incorrect things that can be seen in RDA records 
created during the test period.  I'd personally like to see PCC require 
some RDA training, but not sure how this could be administered and what 
that training would need to consist of.  No doubt, Judy Kuhagen and her 
test review group have a good idea of the kinds of errors that were 
consistently made during the test.

B-4: Not opposed to this if the training documentation is clear about what 
to do.

WF-1: Institutions should be allowed to do this themselves if they wish, 
or report to LC if they are unsure of correct subject usage. 680 would 
mean a displayable note to users, so I'm not opposed.  Actually, even 
better would be a different subject usage field that was meant to publicly 
display.  How about new field 685 Subject Usage Note?  Then you wouldn't 
need to input the term "SUBJECT USAGE:" in front of the note.  And the 
field would be nicely complementary to the 008/15 Subject Usage byte.

WF-2: Encourage use. Expand use of 034 to subject authority records, and 
also to non-jurisdictional entities (e.g., geog. coordinates for 
University of Washington could be recorded).