The guidelines below are quite helpful and will be useful to many participating in NACO authority work. As you know, there still remain many NARs in the NAF that are coded in 008 field, position 10 as “a” (Earlier rules), “b” (AACR1), or “d” (AACR2 compatible heading). Each of these types of records are prime candidates for the 1xx changing as they are recoded to RDA.
Would your comments refer ONLY to AACR2 NARs (coded as “c” in the 008 field, position 10)? Would NARs coded “a”, “b”, or “d” in 008 field, position 10 NOT include the 400 $wnne or 400 $wnnea for the previous 1xx when the NAR is recoded to RDA? Or would these records be treated the same as your comments regarding AACR2 NARs?
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Frank, Paul
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 6:58 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: 1) $w nnea and $w nne 2) Order of subfields in 37X, etc.
There have been two topics discussed on the list recently for which I would like to try to provide some guidance and additional comment:
1) Recording a former AACR2 heading as a variant access point at the time of re-coding to RDA:
<![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>Make a see reference for the old valid form of heading, with $w nnea, unless the reference itself is a valid RDA variant access point, in which case use $w nne. In case of doubt, use $w nnea.
Please see the Personal Name NARs FAQ #13 on the PCC web site for examples. The FAQ was also updated recently to cover other RDA guidelines.
Please also remember that the NACO principle of not changing a 1XX unless it has a factual error (as opposed to an error in judgment) remains in place. Closing open birth dates has been an exception to this principle, and now with RDA re-coding, other 1XX’s may be candidates for change. But, for example, if an AACR2 1XX is qualified with a subfield $q, or does not include dates in subfield $d, the 1XX does not need to change at the time of re-coding to RDA, unless another required change is being made to the 1XX such as adding Jr., or deleting a "b." or "d." etc.
2) Order of subfields in 37X authority records in RDA
I was the person who recommended to colleagues at Columbia University:
Subfield $2, if coded, should precede subfield $v or a combination of subfield $v + $u ... Aside from that, there is no guidance on placement. I always put the subfield $2 after the last element to which it applies, and before any subfield $s or $t:
372 $a Biotechnology $a Genetic engineering $2 lcsh $s 2008
372 $a Biotechnology $a Genetic engineering $s 2008 $2 lcsh
This can be considered a PCC NACO best practice, but as Richard Moore mentioned, the order does not make any difference to a machine parsing the field, and there is no prescribed order given in the MARC 21 Authority Format.
Thanks everyone, Happy Thanksgiving!
Cooperative Programs Section
Cooperative and Instructional Programs Division
Library of Congress
101 Independence Ave., SE
Washington, DC 20540-4230