I agree with what Paul said.


The stipulation about not changing an authorized access point merely to add or remove a fuller form is talking about the cataloger-added qualifier in $q, not the preferred name itself. If the preferred name (what’s in subfield $a, and sometimes $n or $c) doesn’t correspond to usage, then it should be changed.


On Paul’s statement “In fact, this evaluation applies to all headings being re-coded to RDA”: i.e., this includes any record being recoded to RDA, not just records with the 667 note. The 667 was only added to the records that the conversion program could tell might be a problem, but that doesn’t mean all other records are fine. Not all records currently coded AACR2 conform to RDA. There might be a usage problem, as here, or there might be something where RDA has a different guideline for defining the preferred name (as where RDA says words like “Jr.,” “Sr.”, etc., are part of the preferred name, where they were not under AACR2).


I would actually go out on a limb here (just a little) and say that the record for Henry M. Burlage was incorrect even under AACR2, and so the 1XX field could have been changed even before the migration to RDA. The basic principle of choosing the preferred name on the basis of the most commonly-known form of the name didn’t change between AACR2 and RDA. So to go just a little farther than Paul, I might say “In fact, this evaluation can apply to any record in the file”—if you find a preferred name that goes blatantly against usage, as in the case of Henry M. Burlage,” it can be considered an error in fact and the 1XX can be changed, whether the record is coded AACR2 or RDA. To make myself clear, we don’t willy-nilly go changing authorized access points, and it’s not very efficient to reevaluate every single record we look at, so we don’t do that, but if something catches our eye it is sometimes worthwhile to take a minute to check. For example, if no usage in the record matches the usage in the preferred name in 1XX, it might be worthwhile looking. Another case is where the preferred name was based on the person’s thesis (a form which the person normally has no control over), but he/she has since published several resources consistently using another form.




Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Frank, Paul
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 8:48 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Guidelines for updating personal names with 667 note


Hi Vicki,


You are doing the right thing.


The presence of a 667 note “THIS 1XX FIELD CANNOT BE USED UNDER RDA UNTIL THIS RECORD HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND/OR UPDATED” in a NACO record means, at the time of re-coding to RDA, that you should evaluate the usages recorded in the 670 field(s) of the record and verify that the preferred name is based on the predominant usage according to the RDA instructions 9.2.2, Preferred name of the person.


In fact, this evaluation applies to all headings being re-coded to RDA. See the PCC Post RDA Test Guidelines, Updates to Existing Records, 3):


“If using an RDA acceptable heading in PCC cataloging, PCC catalogers are strongly encouraged to evaluate and recode the authority record to RDA whenever possible.  “Evaluate” means you should check the usage(s) of the entity as recorded in the 670 field(s) of the authority record and assess the correctness of the heading based on the usages recorded.” 


LC-PCC PS applies only to a fuller form of name, not to the preferred name itself.


Evaluation of the usages of a name and any resultant change to the 1XX would fall under the “unless otherwise changing an existing heading” clause in the LC-PCC PS.




Paul Frank

Acting Coordinator, NACO and SACO Programs

Cooperative Programs Section

Cooperative and Instructional Programs Division

Library of Congress

101 Independence Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20540-4230


[log in to unmask]








From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brueck, Vicki
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 9:11 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Guidelines for updating personal names with 667 note


Hi all,


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 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

375  male

377  eng

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?


I greatly appreciate all of your comments,




Vicki Brueck

Senior Cataloger

Resource Management Services Branch

State Library of North Carolina

4641 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, N.C.  27699-4641

[log in to unmask]

Office: (919) 807-7451  Fax: (919) 733-1843


E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law "NCGS.Ch.132" and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized state official.


[log in to unmask]" alt="NCDCRlogo319px96dpi">[log in to unmask]" alt="slnc-logo-180-wide">