------------------------------------------

John Hostage

Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian

Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services

Langdell Hall 194

Cambridge, MA 02138

[log in to unmask]

+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)

+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)

 

Richard,

 

Thanks again. “Now I get it”, maybe.

 

Since I sent my message this AM, I ran into ‘Rev.’ (i.e. Heim, Joseph A., ǂc Rev.)

I also see Rev., Dr. (i.e. Wilkinson, David, ǂc Rev. Dr.)

 

Anyone want to ‘help me’—provide advice about changes? I assume if I see dates or more info about the name, I will use those in a RDA 1xx field and move the existing 1xx to a 4xx (coded $wnnea). However if I don’t have other info, do I spell out (Reverend). We were also wondering about the 374. Is ‘Clergy $2 lcsh’ appropriate?

 

 

 

Mary Charles Lasater

Vanderbilt

 

 

 

Mary Charles

 

Thank you. I think you are right.

 

Concerning the two examples you mention, they were included in the proposal as I originally wrote it, but in their response LC pointed out, quite rightly, that they are really examples of Affiliation and Place of Residence, etc.. We agreed that those examples should be replaced with other examples, but they are still in the update, so will appear in RDA.

 

I'm happy that they will be allowed, as we want to be able to add things like this. However, as examples they really belong in a new proposal, under drafting, that would allow those elements to be added to personal names under their own colours, so to speak. They will remain legal; it's just that they are currently given as examples of Other Designation, and I would prefer they were given as examples of Affiliation and Place of Residence, etc..

 

There seems no reason why any data of good quality that falls under an RDA element should not be added to an authorized access point, to make that access point unique. This not only serves the user of current formats and systems, but enables unique authority records to be enriched with discretely recorded RDA metadata, which is not possibly in undifferentiated authority records. So I am going to propose that the remaining elements in Chapter 9 that are not currently available as additions to authorised access points be made available, when there is a need for disambiguation, and when the addition would be appropriate. 

 

_________________________

  

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lasater, Mary Charles
Sent: 12 February 2013 15:00
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] [RDA-L] 2012 approved RDA proposals: changes posted

Richard,

 

Thanks so much for providing this. I ‘intended’ to go through all the changes, checking for this information so you saved me lots of time.

 

Just to be sure I understand, 1xx’s that use $c Ph.D. (i.e Boyd, Robert, Ph. D.) will need to be changed

 

It appears that we could possible change1xx’s with M.D. to Doctor (i.e. Chen, Jun, $c M.D. )

 

However, the last category that you mention:

 

    Nichols, Chris (Of the North Oxford Association)

    Independent burgess (of Nottingham)

 

These will eventually not be ok under rda--?

 

Sincerely,

 

Mary Charles

 

 

 

With apologies for cross-posting, I'd like to thank Judy for her email below, and draw colleagues attention to two of the BL's proposals (BL/3 and BL/4), that are included in this update, and will appear shortly in the RDA text. They will greatly increase the range of qualifiers available to create unique authorised access points for personal names, and help expedite the elimination of undifferentiated NARs.

 

This is also relevant to the decisions cataloguers take, when reviewing those NARs flagged for review under the Phase I RDA changes to LC/NAF, as many existing $c qualifiers will now be acceptable under RDA (though in some cases needing the addition of parentheses). 

 

The following kinds of qualifier will be available to distinguish personal name access points; they will also be recorded in MARC 21 field 368 in authority records, as and when institutions usethe field in personal NARs (I think LC have yet to implement subfield $d for NACO). I've reminded our own cataloguers that none should be recorded in MARC 21 field 374, as they are not Occupations. This list of potential examples is more extensive that that included in the RDA update.

 

Terms of honour, rank or office:

 

    Lauder Lass (Horse)

 

_________________________

Richard Moore

 

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of JSC Secretary
Sent: 11 February 2013 15:06
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [RDA-L] 2012 approved RDA proposals: changes posted

The final versions of the proposals approved by the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA during and after its November 2012 meeting have been posted on the JSC web site. See the "Sec final" documents listed in the table of new working documents or consult a specific proposal in the constituency proposals section.

If you're interested in which instructions are affected by the approved proposals, a table is available for your use. It lists the new, revised, or deleted instructions and indicates where changes were made (in the instruction, in the examples, or both); it also includes the JSC document number if you want to read the background and justification for the changes.

 

Regards, Judy Kuhagen

JSC Secretary