And I will apologize for inadvertently insulting Mary Mastraccio, who evidently did the upgrade of the record to RDA.  Yes, as she notes, if an access point can be found in OCLC with dates, that is considered a source.  Personally I always try to justify that information, because it’s jarring to see dates without them being cited elsewhere in the AR.  As I understand it, when LC contracted to have older authorities put into the authority file, a lot of information from the cards was left off—justification for dates, for alternate forms of name, and so forth.  Occasionally you’ll see an LC cataloger actually citing the manual file to clarify something that, in an ideal world, would have been included in the first place by the contractor.

      I still think that, for reasons reinforced (I think) by others, George Fraser Black is probably not the best choice for the heading, but reasonable people can disagree.

Chuck Herrold

 

 

 

 

Hi all,

I’m sorry I was nasty in saying John’s concern wasn’t “important.” I know we’re all trying to do the best job  we can. That wasn’t the right way to express my point.

 

Sincerely,

Ted Gemberling

UAB Lister Hill Library

(205)934-2461

 

 

This strikes me as not a very important problem since the middle initial was spelled out elsewhere in the book. I would think that the frequently appealed to “cataloger’s judgment” makes the 100 adequate. If someone looks for George F. Black, they will find George Fraser.

 

What I worry about more on that RDA record is the 374 “Scholar.” I realize those fields are set up to make the authorities more machine-readable and searchable. That will probably prove useful in the future. But how many people are going to have the generic “Scholar” on their authorities? That may be useless. In the NACO RDA training, there is one example of an author on interior design who got a BA in biology, so biology was put on as one of her fields. But as far as I know she’s never published anything on biology. My “cataloger’s judgment” would not be to put that on as a field for her. Or would that be breaking a rule? I guess I think of rules as tools for helping us do a good job, not ends in themselves.

 

It seems like we are doing subject analysis to some extent if we add those 374 and 372 fields. Should we be conservative in adding things like “Scholar” or err on the side of adding them? I would think conservative would be better.

 

Ted Gemberling

UAB Lister Hill Library

(205)934-2461

 

 

There is also this about sources of information for the preferred name from RDA 9.2.2.2 (emphasis added):

 

Determine the preferred name for a person from the following sources *(in order of preference):*

a) the preferred sources of information (see 2.2.2) in resources associated with the person

b) other formal statements appearing in resources associated with the person

c) other sources (including reference sources).

 

 

This email message and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.� Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by anyone other than the intended individual or entity is prohibited without prior approval.� If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately.