The $w fourth position "a" in a 4XX signifies that the reference
should not be displayed in a public index where consistency with a set
of rules is intended for all controlled access points and references.
It doesn't mean that the system shouldn't index the 4XX for other
purposes, e.g., to assist catalogers or to enable automated correction
of the old heading. If a given system decides not to be scrupulous
about having all controlled access points and references adhere to one
rule set in public indexes, then it could choose to disregard the $w
nnna and display all the 4XXs there.

One addendum for the list of options when dealing with old
headings--when a 4XX for an older form of the heading is found to be
in conflict with a 1XX heading, practice has been to resolve the
conflict by moving the older form into a 667 note (cf.DCM Z1, on NACO
Normalization), e.g.,

667 $a Old catalog heading: Napoléon I, Emperor of the French, 1769-1821

The old heading normalizes the same as the current heading, which
omits the acute accent; so it can't go in a 4XX.


On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Ted P Gemberling <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Adam,
> When you say "such references are not supposed to be displayed as references in the catalog," do you mean they shouldn't be searchable? Or that they shouldn't display on index screens? But if either of those things is true, why include them on authority records at all? Just to show the history of the heading?
> Thanks,
> Ted Gemberling
> UAB Lister Hill Library
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 2:03 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Subfield coding for $w
> $w nnea means that it is a formerly established access point/heading that is not valid as a reference in whatever cataloging rules are being used, so for RDA that means not valid as an RDA variant access point.  Such references are not supposed to be displayed as references in the catalog.   That's the basic idea at least.  So a heading that was ok in AACR2 that would not be a proper variant access point in RDA would be coded $w nnea.  If the AACR2 form IS a valid variant access point in RDA, then you would use $w nne.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Adam L. Schiff
> Principal Cataloger
> University of Washington Libraries
> Box 352900
> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
> (206) 543-8409
> (206) 685-8782 fax
> [log in to unmask]
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013, Ted P Gemberling wrote:
>> I revised a name authority record for RDA. I think my RDA headings are
>> still under review. I wanted to know if I understood the $w subfield
>> coding. It's n 2003127508 for Neumann, Robert (Dentist). The old (I
>> presume AACR2) heading was Neumann, Robert, Zahnarzt. I just looked at
>> the LC documentation at
>> and realized that I probably used the wrong $w coding in the 400.  I used nnaa which means it was a pre-AACR2 form of the heading, and the reference "will not be displayed." If this is an AACR2 form, the third character should be e. I'm not sure what "not displayed" means. I notice that the 400 form does display in the index screens of both OCLC and my home catalog, in spite of that coding.
>> Any enlightenment would be appreciated.
>> Thanks,
>> Ted Gemberling
>> UAB Lister Hill Library

Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Technical Services, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
160 Wilson Library
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Ph: 612-625-2328
Fx: 612-625-3428