Richard, Nancy, Chuck, and other curious PCC list readers,
This question and various permutations on it have been asked many times already, so in the April 2013 DCM Z1 update, the following statement will appear in the 100 Heading - Personal Name section, and today I will add a Personal Name FAQ on this as well:
Order of subfields in 100 field
There is no prescribed MARC order for the subfields beyond subfield $a in the X00 fields. RDA 126.96.36.199.5 provides guidance for the placement of words indicating relationship (e.g., Jr.) and MARC defines subfield $q as “fuller form of name.” When providing multiple additions to the name generally follow these guidelines:
1) Subfield $d (date) should always be the last element in a 100 string unless the term
(Spirit) is being added to the name. Add $c (Spirit) as the last element in a 100
100 0# $a Elizabeth $b I, $c Queen of England, $d
1533-1603 $c (Spirit)
2) Generally add subfield $c before subfield $q when also adding words, numerals, etc.
indicating relationship. (See RDA 188.8.131.52.5 for treatment of Portuguese names)
100 1# $a McCauley, Robert H., $c Jr. $q (Robert
Henry), $d 1913-1979
100 1# $a M. Alicia $q (Mary Alicia), $c Sister,
3) For exceptional situations, such as when subfield $a contains only a surname or only a
forename or the name includes a prefix, etc. consult LC-PCC PS 1.7.1, section Access
points for persons in name authority and bibliographic records, paragraph 3c.
Cooperative Programs Section
Cooperative and Instructional Programs Division
Library of Congress
101 Independence Ave., SE
Washington, DC 20540-4230
I think that "in that order" in 184.108.40.206 refers to an intended order of precedence for single qualifiers that might be added to distinguish, rather than to the order in which multiple qualifiers might be added to one name. The corresponding LC-PCC-PS (220.127.116.11 : Differentiating Authorized Access Points for Persons) parses the rule but countermands the order of precedence ("add one of the following (not listed in priority order)".
I don't know whether there might be a difference in the placing of an occupation in relation to a date, depending on whether the occupation was added following 18.104.22.168 e), or 22.214.171.124 ...
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Herrold, Charles
Sent: 18 February 2013 15:11
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Order of subfields in RDA NARs for personal names
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
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: 126.96.36.199 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[log in to unmask]" alt="Description: http://access.rdatoolkit.org/images/rdalink.png">) 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.
188.8.131.52, the general guidelines, has:
184.108.40.206, date, precedes 220.127.116.11, 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 18.104.22.168:
KJ-52, $d 1975- $c (Rapper)
Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
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.
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library
Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
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
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 22.214.171.124) and leave the heading with the unique string Roberts, Ian $c (Actor)? After all, that's what the Phase 2 program would do...
University of Hawaii at Manoa
2550 McCarthy Mall
Honolulu, HI 96822
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.