It is important to appreciate the distinction between a title that is addition to the preferred name in an authorized access point, and a title that is a part of the person's name itself.

A title from the categories in 9.4 is not part of a person's name.  It is an element that can be added as an addition to the preferred name in the authorized access point.  The only "titles" that are part of the name are those discussed in in which the title contains both a term of rank (e.g., Viscount) and a proper noun (e.g., Bolingbroke) and the proper noun portion of the title is treated as a surname (e.g., Bolingbroke, Henry St. John, Viscount).  Even though Viscount is recorded in $c in MARC, it is considered part of the preferred name--not an addition to the name.

The only instruction in 9.4 for which the term "Professor" could be reasonably be thought to apply is  However, these titles are "Terms of Rank, Honour, or Office" and are not meant to be conflated with profession or occupation.  In some countries, like Germany, professor is more of a title signifying a level of academic accomplishment.  In the United States, it is a profession or occupation that may also be used as a term of address. LC's initial opposition to 6JSC/BL/3, which reintroduced this element from AACR2 to RDA was because of the confusion between these "terms of rank, honor, or office" and terms indicating "profession or occupation."  This is why the example proposed by the BL of "Professor" was removed from this section.  

Is is clear from the NAR for this person that he is a teacher at the college level so Professor is a term of profession or occupation in his case.  This record was flagged in 2012 as part of the Phase 1 changes to the LC/NACO authority file and it received the note with which we are all now familiar:


Gary's programmatic changes only added the 667 note--they did not recode the record to "rda."  When the NAR was updated in 2014 and recoded to RDA, the NACO participant either forgot to change the 100 field to reflect RDA policies, or they misunderstood the distinction between and 9.16.  There is a priority order of additions in 9.19.  Date of birth and/or death should be added before anything else, and the the date of birth was added to the record when it was recoded to RDA.  Since there is another David Jacoby in the NAF without any additions to the name in the authorized access point, something is needed to disambiguate this one.  Thus, following RDA and the LC-PCC PS for, Existing Authority Records, as they should have been applied when this NAR would have been evaluated for RDA use, I have changed the 100 form thus:

	100 1# $a Jacoby, David, $d 1928-

Also important to note is the fact that in the current priority of additions, profession or occupation should be added to distinguish before "term of rank, honour or office."  Since a profession is ascertainable from the existing information in the NAR, that should have been added if dates were not available.

Kate James
Policy and Standards Division
Library of Congress

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 9:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Must X00 $c be in parentheses in RDA authorities?

I think it would depend on whether the term is a person's title, or it is being added as an occupation or profession.  If the term is part of the person's name (e.g. it appears on resources as "Professor David Jacoby"), then it would be recorded as

Jacoby, David, $c Professor

On the other hand, if it doesn't appear as part of his name but is being added as an occupation/profession, then it would be in parentheses:

Jacoby, David $c (Professor)

Since there is justification in the authority record for the name "Professor David Jacoby", I think this authority record is correct as is.

Adam Schiff

* Adam L. Schiff                     * 
* Principal Cataloger                *
* University of Washington Libraries *
* Box 352900                         *
* Seattle, WA 98195-2900             *
* (206) 543-8409                     * 
* (206) 685-8782 fax                 *
* [log in to unmask]           * 

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, Shorten, Jay wrote:

> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 19:24:13 +0000
> From: "Shorten, Jay" <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging 
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Must X00 $c be in parentheses in RDA authorities?
> Example: n  89106593 Jacoby, David, ?c Professor  , an RDA record. I know in the beginning this had to be ?Jacoby, David $c (Professor)? to be a valid RDA form, but is ?Jacoby, David, ?c Professor? now acceptable? (I was thinking of changing it to Jacoby, David, $d 1928-  if it wasn?t.) And could someone cite me the policy change so I know where to look it up next time?
> Jay Shorten
> Cataloger, Monographs and Electronic Resources Associate Professor of 
> Bibliography Catalog Department University Libraries University of 
> Oklahoma Co-owner, PERSNAME-L, the list about personal names in 
> bibliographic and authority records
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
[log in to unmask]