(I was about to finish this when Paul’s reply came in, but I’ll send it anyway.)
I agree with Chuck. There is a difference here between fuller form of name and the “fullness” of the preferred name. The fullness comes into play in 22.214.171.124.1, where Henry M. Burlage was chosen as the form most commonly found. The fuller form of name is an element at 9.5, where Henry Matthew was recorded as the fuller form. This is used as an addition (subfield $q) in 126.96.36.199 if needed to distinguish the access point. Optionally it can be added in other cases. The LC-PCC PS says don’t add or remove it if no other changes to the AAP are necessary.
Question: should the 400 for Burlage, H. M. have $w nne if that was never an established heading on an authority record?
Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger //
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services //
Langdell Hall 194 //
Cambridge, MA 02138
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
While those more knowledgeable than I will probably comment, I’ve said on the PERSNAME list that what you did was exactly what I would have done. I have a feeling that the LC-PCC PS statement, judging from the examples at 188.8.131.52, applies only to names were a $q has been or could be used, but not to a fuller form of name that does not reflect usage. In other words, had the AAP been Burlage, Henry M. (Henry Matthew) … or Burlage, Henry M. …, you would not delete the fuller form of name, Henry Matthew, from the former, or add it to the latter, unless it were necessary to break a conflict. I believe that usage trumps everything else. And in this case, the coding of the name as AACR2 compatible was a recognition that it did not match usage and would need to be revised accordingly.
Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
In addition to the rest of my colleagues answers, I would like to hear Robert Maxwell and Paul Frank’s answer on this question.
There still seems to be considerable confusion about how to deal with updating personal name authority records that have the 667 note “THIS 1XX FIELD CANNOT BE USED UNDER RDA UNTIL THIS RECORD HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND/OR UPDATED” particularly those where the heading does not reflect the usages. In the document: Summary of Programmatic changes to the LC/NACO authority file: what LC-PCC RDA catalogers need to know, page 2 is the following statement regarding authority records with that note:
“RDA-trained PCC catalogers encountering a name authority record (NAR) with
this 667 field should evaluate the 1XX field, and the remainder of the authority
record. If the evaluation determines that the existing 1XX field can be used
under RDA as given, the cataloger should remove the 667 field, add any
additional non-heading fields, and re-code the record to RDA. If the evaluation
determines that the existing 1XX needs to be updated to be made acceptable for
use under RDA, the cataloger should revise the heading, make a reference from
the former heading when applicable, remove the 667 field, add any additional
non-heading fields of their choosing, and re-code the record to RDA.”
However LC-PCC PS for RDA 184.108.40.206 states
Existing authority records
LC practice/PCC practice for Optional addition: Unless otherwise changing an existing heading (e.g., conflict), do not change an existing AACR2 or RDA heading merely to add or remove a fuller form of name.
I’ve read the documentation and asked questions at ALA annual in PCC meetings, but the confusion still seems to exist. So I am hoping that this email and its responses can give some further guidance. When I am confronted by a personal name authority record with this 667 note should I check all usages of a personal name in OCLC (in my case) and if the 100 does not match the usages should I revise it to reflect the actual usages on bib records? Or should I instead follow the LC-PCC PS which says not to change an existing record merely to add or remove a fuller form of name? Does the presence of that 667 note mean that I should pretend that I am establishing this name for the first time and make the 100 match the usages and if that means changing the 100 field I should do so? Or follow the more conservative bent of the Policy statement and not change the 100 to add or remove a fuller form of name?
To give a concrete example, I recently updated the following AACR2 compatible authority record (Rules d) with that 667 note:
LCCN: n 79021770.
Originally: 100 1_Burlage, Henry Matthew, ǂd 1897-1978
There are 71 bib records in OCLC and here are the usages:
Henry M. Burlage: 52
H. M. Burlage: 7
Henry Matthew Burlage: 2
No usage: 10
Overwhelmingly his preference is Henry M. Burlage, and so following my understanding of the Programmatic changes document I changed the 100.
Here’s the current authority record:
010 n 79021770
040 DLC ǂb eng ǂe rda ǂc DLC ǂd NmU ǂd NcU ǂd DLC ǂd Nc
046 ǂf 18970523 ǂg 19781006
1001 Burlage, Henry M., ǂd 1897-1978
370 Rensselaer (Ind.) ǂ2 naf
372 Pharmacy ǂ2 lcsh
374 College teachers ǂ2 lcsh
378 ǂq Henry Matthew
4001 Burlage, H. M., ǂd 1897-1978 ǂw nne
4001 Burlage, Henry Matthew, ǂd 1897-1978 ǂw nne
670 His Fundamental principles and processes of pharmacy, 1944.
670 Pharmacy's foundation in Texas, c1978: ǂb t.p. (Henry M. Burlage)
670 Marquis who's who WWW site, Jan. 14, 2011 ǂb (Henry Matthew Burlage; b. May 23, 1897, Rensselaer, Ind., d. Oct. 6, 1978; professor of pharmacy)
670 OCLC, April 1, 2014: ǂb (access points: Burlage, Henry Matthew, 1897-1978; Burlage, Henry Matthew; Burlage, Henry M. (Henry Matthew), 1897-; Burlage, Henry M.; Burlage, H. M.; usages: Henry M. Burlage, Henry Matthew Burlage, H.M. Burlage)
So should I change the 100 to match the usages, or not change it since it only involves a fuller form of name?