Stephen
Thank
you for pointing me to this FAQ.
It
seems the answers are:
1.
LC/PCC
policy suggests that if Sw I $r is used instead of $w nnnc, then 663 should not
be used. I now find a link to this in LC-PCC-PS for 30.1.1.3.
2.
In the
case of unused real names we are asked to record the unused name in 400 and not
use relationship designators. Here I tend to agree with what John Hostage says
about the limitations of MARC. Whether to record in 400 or 500 is a bit of a
false dichotomy.
3.
The
FAQ says to use “old” $w nnnc and 663 practice and basic headings for multiple
pseudonyms.
I
agree with what you say anout suppressing 500s. Our systems never did this
anyway.
The
FAQ preserves a lot of AACR2 and LCRI practices, and I’d like to see it reviewed
so we can move to fuller implementation of the App K relationship designators:
1.
I’d
like to be able to record “Explanation of relationship” (30.2.1) in 663, “if
considered important for identification or clarification”, when $r relationship
designators have been used in 500 instead of $w nnnc.
2.
I’d
like to be able to use $r alternate identity in the 400 for an unused real
name.
3.
I’d
like to be able to use relationship designators in NARs for multiple pseudonyms,
together with 663, and do away with basic headings.
Is
this something PCC would be willing to discuss?
Regards
Richard
_________________________
Richard
Moore
Authority
Control Team Manager
The
British Library
Tel.:
+44 (0)1937
546806
E-mail:
[log in to unmask]
From: Program
for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Stephen Hearn
Sent: 12 June 2013 16:45
To:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] RDA relationship
designators for pseudonyms in NARs
Responding to 1. re the use of $w nnnc on 500s in cases of
pseudonyms: DCM Z1 points to a document titled "FAQ--LC/PCC RDA and AACR2
practice for creating NARs for persons who use pseudonyms" ( http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/pseud.pdf ), which says
among other things:
Q5. Can the 663 note be used without coding the 500 field
with subfield $w nnnc? (MARC 21 Format for Authority Records, 663
field)
A5. No, the 663 note must have a corresponding 500 field
(see-also reference) with a subfield $w coded nnnc. The subfield $w should only
be used in the see-also reference (500 field) of a NAR that contains a 663
note.
So whether $w r and $i are used is a separate question not
affecting the instruction to suppress the 500s with $w
?nnc.
Still, the suppression of the 500 references has always been
a dubious practice. The 500 reference appears as a See Also access point;
the 663 appears as a note attached to the 100's access point. By suppressing the
500, we make it more difficult for users to find works by the person they're
seeking if they search with an alternate name. Indexing the names in $b's from
the 663 might help with this, but the fact that the name in $b lacks the
subfielding the corresponding 100 would have could be problematic; and I haven't
seen a system that does it. If we let the 500s display, then the complex
reference information in the 663 would be available to users searching with any
of the name variants. It could also mean that a 500 would index when no bib
usage for that heading appears in my catalog, but I'd be OK with that, given
that the 500 would connect users to something I do have.
Stephen
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Moore, Richard <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
Three questions:
1. 500 $w nnnc and 663
When
making simple see-also references between real names and pseudonyms, where
multiple names are concerned we would (formerly) code the 500 fields $w nnnc
(suppressed, in theory), and use 663.
I assume, rightly or wrongly, that
we would not use $w nnnc with 500 fields containing the RDA App K relationship
designators "real identity" and "alternate identity", but would still (usefully)
record a 663, as this maps to RDA 30.2.
Old practice (for a joint
pseudonym):
1001 |a Hampton, Peter
5001 |w nnnc |a Franks,
Peter
5001 |w nnnc Moore, Simon
663 |a Pseudonym used by Peter
Franks and Simon Moore, For works by these authors under their own names, search
also under: |b Franks, Peter; |b Moore, Simon
RDA practice:
1001
|a Hampton, Peter
5001 |w r |i real identity |a Franks, Peter
5001 |w r |i
real identity |a Moore, Simon
663 |a Pseudonym used by Peter
Franks and Simon Moore, For works by these authors under their own names, search
also under: |b Franks, Peter; |b Moore, Simon
Is this correct?
2.
Unused real names
It also occurs to me that, in order to use these
relationship designators at all in LC/NAF, between names, there needs to be an
authorised access point and a NAR for all names, even if there are only two
names. Does this mean we need to review the practice of treating the unused real
name of one pseudonym as a 400?
Old practice:
1001 |a Shute,
Nevil, |d 1899-1960
4001 |a Norway, Nevil Shute, |d 1899-1960
RDA
practice:
1001 |a Shute, Nevil, |d 1899-1960
5001 |w r |i real
identity |a Norway, Nevil Shute, |d 1899-1960
1001 |a Norway, Nevil
Shute, |d 1899-1960
5001 |w r |i alternate identity |a Shute, Nevil, |d
1899-1960
Has PCC considered this point?
3. List names
Do
we still use list names, or should we now refer from each name to every
other?
Many thanks for any
observations.
Regards
Richard
_________________________
Richard
Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library
Tel.: +44
(0)1937 546806
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
**************************************************************************
Experience
the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/
The British Library’s latest Annual
Report and Accounts : http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html
Help the
British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook
The Library's St Pancras
site is WiFi -
enabled
*************************************************************************
The
information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally
privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the
intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:[log in to unmask] : The contents of this
e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.
The
statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do
not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does
not take any responsibility for the views of the
author.
*************************************************************************
Think
before you print
--
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