I have wondered about this requirement.   One of the examples is:

 

AACR2:
100 1 $a Walter, David, ád 1948-
RDA:
100 1 $a Walter, David, ád 1948-2012
400 1 $a Walter, David, ád 1948- $w nne

 

This seems to be saying that anytime we are adding a death date and happen to be recoding to rda, we need to make the reference.   What purpose does it serve?   Isnít this an odd exception to the general rule that variant access points are optional under RDA?

 

Amy

 

 

Amy Turner

 

Monographic 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 John Hostage
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 10:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Record not OK for RDA yet?

 

I believe a 4XX for the old heading should always be added now.  Surely this also applies to AACR2-compatible (008/10=d) and pre-AACR2 (008/10=a or b) headings.

http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/naco/personnamefaq.html#13

 

 

------------------------------------------

John Hostage

Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger //

Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services //

Langdell Hall 194 //

Cambridge, MA 02138

[log in to unmask]

+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)

+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)

 

----------------------------------------------------------

This particular record got flagged automatically to receive a 667 note, because the Fixed Field for Rules is coded d, indicating that it was a pre-AACR record. All records with "d" in the Rules Fixed Field were flagged in this way; they were all automatic candidates for review and possible changes in order to conform to RDA. There are many others like them still in the NAF, awaiting human review.

In the meantime, I see that a helpful NACO colleague has already upgraded the record to RDA, so the problem with this particular record is solved.