Yes, it applies to particular works, not all of the person’s works. It also means that both identities are valid as separate authorized access points. However, for any particular work, it can only have one authorized access point, so only one identity can be part of the AAP, and the other identity should be recorded in a variant access point for any works that have been issued with different identities appearing on the manifestations.
So, in a work authority for a work that has appeared in manifestations with different identities on them, after deciding which identity should be used for that work, I would make a variant AP with the other identity:
100 1 Identity A. $t Work title
400 1 Identity B. $t Work title
That would also mean that there should be two authority records for the identities:
100 1 Identity A
500 1 Identity B
100 1 Identity B
500 1 Identity A
Adam L. Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 685-8782 fax
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Gene Fieg
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 11:58 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 126.96.36.199
Just a question here. Does that instruction only apply to the work in hand?
I thought AAPs for persons were based on the predominant usage for that person's works, not merely for that work "embodied in the resources." (Who writes like that???)
In this case, I would use the AAP, already established and make sure there is a 500 in the authority record, just in case the patron searches under the unauthorized form of the the name, Or maybe a a 400.
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Robert Maxwell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
188.8.131.52 doesn't state that "works with responsibility split between one author's true name and pen name should be entered under the true name". It says that the authorized access point is constructed by combining the authorized access point for *the identity most frequently used on resources embodying the work* and the preferred title. In case you can't figure that out, then we are instructed to begin with the authorized access point appearing in *the most recent resource embodying the work.* In neither case is that necessarily the "true" name.
So the question is, which identity is most frequently used on resources embodying "A city girl"? From what you say below, it looks like that identity is "John Law."
I don't think RDA 184.108.40.206 justifies what LC-PSD apparently did with Michael Crichton. As far as I can see neither RDA nor any policy statements say what to do with statements such as "Michael Crichton writing as John Lange", but 220.127.116.11, again, says that the authorized access point is based on the identity used most frequently. Just because current publications suddenly start explaining who John Lange is doesn't justify changing the access points for the works, much less deleting the identity entirely. I'd be interested in hearing from LC-PSD itself either explaining why they took this seeminly extraordinary action, or saying they will restore the file.
My opinion about phrases such as "Michael Crichton writing as John Lange" or " John Law (Margaret Harkness)": These phrases do identify the real identity of a pseudonym and seem mainly used when an author has risen to a point where recognition of the real identity will sell more copies than the pseudonym. But in both cases the phrasing indicates that the work still represents itself as being written by the pseudonym identity, not the "real" identity and the information about the real name is being given as information only. The principle of representation continues to apply: the works should continue to be identified using the identity they represent themselves by, in these cases, the pseudonym.
Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
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 Robert M. TALBOTT
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 2:37 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Good afternoon Folks:
I have a case here that involves a pseudonym and may invoke the full implied force of RDA 18.104.22.168 but I should check before requesting cancellations.
n 79123172 Law, John, $d 1854-1923
nb2007013259 Harkness, Margaret, $d 1854-1923
Magaret Harkness wrote under her own name and under the pen name John Law. It seems that ealier editions of thew work in hand, A city girl, simply had John Law as the responsible party, though the in-hand publication has John Law (Margaret Harkness), which seems to meet the inconstancy criteria of 22.214.171.124. It's difficult to say for certain, but one gets the impression that most everything she wrote as John law is now given the statement of responsibility John Law (Margaret Harkness).
The Crichton qualification: the classic example of an author with multiple pen names is Michael Crichton, whose authority record has a very interesting 667: "Michael Crichton wrote 8 novels and 2 short stories under the name John Lange; these have been reissued with the statement "Michael Crichton writing as John Lange"; per RDA 126.96.36.199 the authorized access point for these works is Michael Crichton. The alternate identity authority record for John Lange has been deleted--LC-PSD, August 14, 2014."
As is, 188.8.131.52 states unequivocally that any works with responsibility split between one author's true name and pen name should be entered under the true name: not Law, John, [dates]. $t City girl ..., rather Harkness, Margaret, [dates]. $t City girl ... .The Crichton qualification takes this to its logical conclusion, but isn't stated explicitly in RDA so far as I can tell.
My question to you all: a record for Harkness and Law, or one record where Law is a cross reference to Harkness?
Principal cataloger/Hebraica cataloger
Berkeley, CA 94720
יול נא מי באי מאי בלאק טעלעסקאפ