If the cataloger creating the heading for the first time knows the fuller form of a person’s name, it is a great help to both users and other catalogers to include it in the heading itself rather than just in a 378 field. It makes it faster and easier to identify a person in a list rather than to have to delve into each individual name authority record, looking for the 378 or information buried in the 670 fields to determine whether this person is the one you want or not. This is an especially difficult aspect of cataloging for Russian names, because the use of initialisms is so prevalent in Russian publications, and many names are not unique unless they have the fuller form. So I am in favor of adding the fuller form in the heading when you know it, rather than waiting for a conflict later.
University of Chicago Library
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Ian Fairclough
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Revised LC-PCC Policy for Fuller form of name (188.8.131.52, option)
This phrase " if the cataloger considers it important for identification" pretty much leaves it to individual judgment whether to include a fuller form. Assuming
I'm understanding correctly. (Of course, if your boss tells you what to do-- But surely a boss should advise the cataloger to exercise judgment)
I used to "like" putting subfield q in 100s in name authority records. But someone pointed out, not everyone likes their middle name(s), and we're not necessarily ingratiating ourselves to such people by blazing it in catalog headings. Furthermore, in the United States, I've noticed over the years, parents use a child's middle name on specific occasions, ones the child may prefer to forget!
Having the data in 378q of a NAR should suffice for most purposes, am I right?
Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - [log in to unmask]