Print

Print


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 9.19.1.4 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


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.

[NCDCRlogo319px96dpi][slnc-logo-180-wide]