I’ve done one somewhat like this—not very tidy—and perhaps incorrectly:

 

010  n 2003080212 ǂz no2005069223

040  DLC ǂb eng ǂe rda ǂc DLC ǂd DLC ǂd PPi-MA

046  ǂf 1975

1000 KJ-52 ǂc (Rapper), ǂd 1975-  [changed from KJ52 (Rapper)]

374  Rap musicians ǂ2 lcsh

375  male

4000 KJ52 ǂc (Rapper), ǂd 1975-

4001 Sorrentino, Jonah, ǂd 1975-

670  KJ52 (Rapper). 7th Avenue, p2000: ǂb label (KJ52)

670  His It's pronounced five two [SR] p2003: ǂb label (KJ-52)

670  Behind the musik, 2005: ǂb insert (KJ-52)

670  All music guide WWW site, 05-08-03 ǂb (KJ-52; b. Jonah Sorrentino; Christian rapper)

670  U.S. copyright file, Dec. 19, 2012 ǂb (Sorrentino, Jonah Kirsten Carlin, 1975- )

670  KJ-52 WWW site, Dec. 19, 2012 ǂb (KJ-52)

670  Facebook, Dec. 19, 2012 ǂb (KJ-52)

 

    The reasoning was as follows: 9.19.1.2 says: Add to the name one or more of the following elements (in this order), as applicable:

e) the profession or occupation (see 9.16) for a person whose name consists of a phrase or appellation not conveying the idea of a person.

 

Since I also knew the birth date, I then added that. 

 

9.19.1.1, the general guidelines, has:

 

Make additions to the name as instructed at 9.19.1.2–9.19.1.6, in that order, as applicable.

 

    9.19.1.3, date, precedes 9.19.1.6, profession.

 

In AACR2, I frequently constructed headings of this sort by using a birth date only, assuming the presence of that would be enough to clarify that the name was that of a person.  In this case, KJ-52, $d 1975- is what I would have done.  Perhaps that approach could be used in RDA.  It would avoid making a decision on the order of these additions, but maybe it was wrong in AACR2 to begin with (e.g., compared with the references in n  93086906, to Shakur, Tupac … which have $c (Musician), $d 1971-1996)   I cannot find an example in RDA that includes both of these additions.  I don’t believe AACR2 has one either.

 

      So, do the general guidelines take precedence over the specific case of 9.19.1.2:

 

KJ-52, $d 1975- $c (Rapper)

 

Chuck Herrold

Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh

 

 

 

Nancy

 

I think the assumptions in your first paragraph are correct.

 

Putting $c (Spirit) after $d [date] feels right, because the entity is (putatively) the spirit of the person who had those dates.

 

The case with date and occupation is a new situation, and I'm not sure if there are examples in the documentation, or precedents to follow. If we are saying "there are two people called Ian Roberts, both born in 1952, and one needs the additional qualifer Actor", then it's probably correct to put the "additional" qualifer afterwards:

 

Roberts, Ian, $d 1952- $c (Actor)

 

I must admit that I too would be tempted to omit the date from the access point for the actor, if it was not already present, in the interests of tidiness - though as you say, the PS suggests otherwise.

 

 

Regards

Richard

 

_________________________

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nancy Sack
Sent: 16 February 2013 01:11
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Order of subfields in RDA NARs for personal names

Aloha,

We're hoping for some clarification about the order of subfields in RDA NARs for personal names. Is it correct that subfield $c follows subfield $d for cataloger additions--occupation terms and also "Spirit"--that are recorded in parentheses but that subfield $c precedes $d when we record terms considered part of the name (such as Jr. or III) or associated titles (such as Countess), or--in the near future--terms of address, honor, office, and rank (such as Sir, Captain, Rev.)? In other words, does $c comes after $d when it contains parentheses but before $d when it does not?

Here's a real-live example: We are updating and recoding NAR no2009160736 (Roberts, Ian, $c actor). The year of birth is known (1952) but another individual is already using the heading Roberts, Ian, $d 1952. Which of these is correct?
    Roberts, Ian, $d 1952- $c (Actor)
    Roberts, Ian $c (Actor), $d 1952-
Or is it better not to record the date in the 100 field at all (in violation of the LC-PCC PS at 9.19.1.3) and leave the heading with the unique string Roberts, Ian $c (Actor)? After all, that's what the Phase 2 program would do...

Thanks.

Nancy

-- 

Nancy Sack

Cataloging Department

University of Hawaii at Manoa

2550 McCarthy Mall

Honolulu, HI 96822

phone: 808-956-2648

fax: 808-956-5968

e-mail: [log in to unmask]

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.