In my opinion the 378 should contain the fuller form as RDA defines it, that is, the complete fuller form, which may include elements not part of the preferred name. I would record "Rowena Lydia" in 378 for Smith, R., even though PCC practice would only include "(Rowena)" in the access point.
Robert L. Maxwell
Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 11:02 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Revised LC-PCC Policy for Fuller form of name (188.8.131.52, option)
Related to this, what is the preferred way to handle 378 when the fuller form that would be used in a qualifier differs from the fullest known form? For example (hypothetically), "Smith, R." (based on preferred name) is known to be "Rowena Lydia Smith." "Smith. R. $q (Rowena)" resolves any known conflicts with other authorized access points and becomes the 100. What should the 378 be: "$q Rowena" or "$q Rowena Lydia" or should there be 378s for both (the field is repeatable)? If improbably "Smith, R." had no conflicts, what would be the preferred 378 practice?
> Having the data in 378q of a NAR should suffice for most purposes, am
> I right?
> - Ian
> Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - [log in to unmask]
Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Technical Services, University Libraries University of Minnesota
160 Wilson Library
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455