Hello Ryan,

The problem is that LC and the NACO nodes have not yet activated these MARC 21 fields.  The official procedures of NACO Program with regard to what MARC 21 data may be exchanged are the guidelines documented in the DCM Z1 and the LC Supplement to the MARC 21 Format for Authority Data.  We are working to negotiate activation of these fields but do not yet have a time-frame for this to occur.  We will  announce on PCClist and I expect that OCLC and SkyRiver will announce it to their members the minute these elements are available for use (we will also then update Z1, etc.).  Until then please do not add these subfields to your NARs.  Thank you for your patience and understanding.  


Ana Lupe Cristán

Library of Congress

Policy and Standards Division

101 Independence Ave.
Washington, DC 20540-4305

Tel. +1.202.707.7921
fax +1.202.707.6629

Email: [log in to unmask]



From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Finnerty, Ryan
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 5:53 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] BL Guide to RDA Name Authority Records - July 2013 changes


Hi everyone,


I was just going through the BL Guide and I find it enormously helpful. I did notice one conflict between the guide and the DCM Z1.


In the BL Guide it says to record the title of the person in 368$d:


Title of the Person (9.4http://access.rdatoolkit.org/images/rdalink.png) is also recorded in MARC 21http://access.rdatoolkit.org/images/externallink.png field 368 subfield |d:


    1001 |a Appleby, Robert, |c Sir

    368   |d Sir


However, the DCM Z1 says not to use 368$d:


Until further notice LC/PCC catalogers are asked NOT to supply the following subfields: $d (Title of person), $s (Start period), $t (End period), $u (Uniform Resource Identifier), and $v (Source of Information).


Same with the LC guidelines to MARC authority format:


368 may be supplied in a name authority record coded 008/10 c or z.

Do not use subfields: 

$d$s$t$u$v$0$6 or $8 


I thought that maybe the DCM Z1 and the LC guidelines were just waiting for revisions to be published in light of the new release of RDA, so I tried adding a 368$d to a record in OCLC and Connexion would not validate it.  I got this error message:


368 occurrence 1 - invalid relationship - when element is present, then 368 $a, 368 $b or 368 $c must be present


This doesn’t make any sense at all since $d is not dependent on $a, $b, or $c.


So my question is, is it okay to begin using the 368$d?  If so, can OCLC change its validation rules?


Ryan J. Finnerty | Head, Database Management & NACO Coordinator

UC San Diego Library | Metadata Services Department

[log in to unmask] | (858) 822-3138




From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Amy Turner
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 7:46 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] BL Guide to RDA Name Authority Records - July 2013 changes


Richard et al.,


I see that new rule  Other Term of Rank, Honour, or Office has the example:


Wood, Captain, John


I hope that the order of elements is not prescriptive!    I would expect  Wood, John, $c Captain.


I am very glad to have more options to avoid undifferentiated names.   Thanks to all those who made it so.




Amy Turner

Cataloger and Authority Control Coordinator, Duke University Libraries

[log in to unmask]


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 9:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] BL Guide to RDA Name Authority Records - July 2013 changes
Importance: High


Dear colleagues



Changes to RDA were published this week, to implement the decisions of JSC last November. The BL Guide to RDA Name Authority Records has been updated to reflect these changes. It can be found here:


RDA Toolkit



---Global workflows

----BL Guide to RDA Name Authority Records


The updated Guide has been reviewed by colleagues at  LC/PCC, who were kind enough to take the time to plough through it and suggest additions and amendments, which have all been incorporated. The Guide is consistent with the LC-PCC-PS, DCM:Z1 and the Post-RDA Test Guidelines.


Sections of the Guide are not numbered (to avoid confusion with RDA instruction numbers), but navigation is by hyperlinks starting at the Contents page. Links are provided throughout the Guide to the relevant RDA instructions, to the LC-PCC-PS, and to MARC 21.


At the end of the Contents page is a section called 2013 Changes to RDA, that summarises the changes affecting name authority records, with links to the more detailed information within the Guide.


From our perspective I would like to draw attention to some of the changes that we first proposed (6JSC/BL/3 and 6JSC/BL/4):


Title of the Person has a new sub-element “Other Term of Rank, Honour or Office” (,, which includes terms indicating academic office, terms of respect for clergy, military ranks, and other terms of honour. It can be used to distinguish an authorised access point if dates of birth/death, periods of activity and occupations are not available.   


Other Designation Associated with the Person (9.6, now includes terms for Persons Named in Sacred Scriptures or Apocryphal Books (, the terms Fictitious character, Legendary character, etc. (, and terms for the type, species or breed of Real Non-human Entities (


Other Designation Associated with the Person also has a new sub-element “Other Designation” (, This element is intentionally broad, and is designed to help remove the few remaining cases where an authorised access point can not be made unique. It therefore encompasses almost any sensible designation, that does not fall within the scope of another element that can be used in an access point. It can be used to distinguish an authorised access point if dates of birth/death, periods of activity, occupations and other terms of rank, honour or office are not available.   


Other significant changes are covered in the Guide, notably the combination of the two lists of corporate and government bodies entered subordinately, which have been combined into a single set of instructions at (6JSC/ALA/18).


This revision of the Guide also contains a section on our practice for relationship designators in name authority records, which follows the “FAQ – LC/PCC RDA and AACR2 practice for creating NARs for persons who use pseudonyms” [1], and recommendations by the Task Group to Formulate or Recommend PCC/NACO RDA Policy on Authority Issues [2].


I hope this is useful.







Richard Moore

Authority Control Team Manager

The British Library


Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806                      

E-mail: [log in to unmask]               


[1] http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/pseud.pdf

[2] http://rwww.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/RDA%20Task%20groups%20and%20charges/TG%20to%20Formulate%20PCC%20NACO%20Policy_Medium%20Priority%20Issues.docx