Many thanks to Kevin, Steven, and Bob for your responses.
What goes in 378 represents the application of RDA 9.5, the element, not the authorized access point. The RDA definition of fuller form in 9.5 is either (a) a part of the name represented by an initial or abbreviation in the preferred name, or, (b) part of the name that wasn’t chosen as part of the preferred name.
Kevin notes that the application in the authorized access point (188.8.131.52) is restricted under NACO policy. Looking today I see the PCC policy has not yet been published there, but I understand it will restrict recording of fuller forms in access points to 9.5’s definition part “a” (expanding something already in the preferred name); “b” (a part of the name that wasn’t in the preferred name) will only be used in an authorized access point if needed to break a conflict. But this LCPS doesn’t have anything to say about recording fuller form as a separate element.
RDA 9.5 and 184.108.40.206, though obviously related, are independent of each other and the information recorded as the element (9.5) does not necessarily need to correspond to the information recorded as part of the authorized access point (220.127.116.11). As RDA practice has developed, we have seen this frequently: for example, recording occupation (374) using LCSH, which is becoming a common practice, severs any connection between the word(s) recorded in 374 and a word that could be used in an access point to break a conflict because the LCSH form is plural and the plural form wouldn’t be used in a qualifier. See, e.g. no2011178916
1000 Dirty Harry ǂc (Saxophonist)
374 Musicians ǂa Saxophonists ǂ2 lcsh
The same concept applies to the fuller form element — the word(s) recorded as an element might not correspond to those recorded as part of the authorized access point. This has been discussed recently either here or on the RDA list, I forget where, and I believe the consensus is to record the fullest form known in 378, even if that differs from what might potentially be recorded in $q of the 100 field. At least that’s my practice and I have observed that it is also the practice of others.
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.
The RDA instruction seems pretty loose as to what kinds of names can be put into this element (thankfully—since the AACR2 LCRI seemed to me to be overly complicated and restrictive). Basically, any form of the name longer than the one recorded as the preferred name—doesn't matter if we're talking additional names or spelled-out names vs. initials.
But I can't understand why there should be a need to limit use of the 378 field in NACO authority records. Limiting use of 100 subfield $q, YES, since the LC policy is to use that only in the case of a conflict. But 378?
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!