The current instruction LC/NACO for modifying undifferentiated personal name authorities is at LC's Descriptive Cataloging Manual, Z1, 008/32, and it matches what you've done by changing 008/32 from b to a. The PCC Task Group on the Creation and Function of Name Authorities in a Non-MARC Environment has recommended a different practice along the lines you describe, but that is only under discussion at this point.

The question of whether to add the 667 note to the "Cook, Paul (Paul Harlin), 1950-" authority is an interesting one. I'd say that adding the title was equivalent on someone's part to adding your Paul Cook as an identity to the undifferentiated authority. Looking at the superseded versions of the (formerly) undifferentiated authority in OCLC it's clear that your Paul has been added not once by twice as an undifferentiated identity, first as editor of American literature c2007 and again as editor of The lost world. I'd say the 667 should be added to Paul (Harlin) Cook's authority, if only to alert catalogers to look under "Cook, Paul" in OCLC for additional records for Paul (Harlin) Cook titles.  I found and fixed a number of them there just now, and would guess a more knowledgeable eye would find others.

Of course, the "undifferentiated" authority is now marked as unique; and if someone differentiates that Paul Cook with a qualifier, we begin to approach the riddle wrapped in an enigma stage for anyone trying to follow up on the 667 note, which refers only to the LCCN.

Stephen


On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Rebecca Uhl <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Colleagues,

We’ve never had to deal with the “last man standing” on an undifferentiated authority record, so I’m not sure how to treat this situation and confusing myself with the documentation.

 

The authority records involved in this are:

nr2002026655  Cook, Paul (Paul Harlin), 1950-

n 88633898       Cook, Paul

n 96080576       Cook, Paul, 1950-

 

We cataloged an item by one of our faculty members (Paul Harlin Cook) and discovered one of his works (The lost word) had been attached to an existing undifferentiated NAR, n 88633898.  We moved the title to the correct authority record, nr2002026655, and adjusted the original to reflect a single person.  However, something I read/heard made me think we should have transferred all the data on the formerly undifferentiated record into a new AR and asked LC to delete the old one.  We tried to find information about the “Paul Cook” on n 88633898, but were unsuccessful, so if we did create a new NAR for him, it would look exactly like the old one, just with a new record number.  Is this really necessary?  (If we’d found additional information about the original Paul Cook, I almost understand the need to create a new NAR, but not when we have nothing to add.) 

 

We also didn’t put the “formerly on undifferentiated ...” note on nr2002026655, because we didn’t create a new NAR, simply transferred data.  Should we have added the note?  If so, how do we indicate the only part of the authority record which was on the undifferentiated NAR is one of the 670s?  (One of the other 670 titles on this authority record was ALSO moved from n 88633898 several years ago, with no note, so we didn’t add it this time, either.)

 

In addition, we found an authority record for another Paul Cook born in 1950.  We did contact our Paul Cook and determined he is NOT the author of “I fitzgranger,” the 670 on n 96080576; should we add a 667 “Do not confuse with ...”?

 

I hope this is clear!

 

Thanks for any guidance you can provide,

Becky

 

Becky Uhl
Science Cataloger/Authority Control Coordinator
Arizona State University Libraries
(480) 965-9802
[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
Ph: 612-625-2328
Fx: 612-625-3428