Christine,

I agree active dates can be very problematic. I agree with your revision. It can help some to put “approximately” in front of active dates, but if the difference between a publication’s date and a person’s active dates is more than a few years, even that doesn’t help much. Some people use centuries rather than active dates, but what if the person’s life span and publications span more than one century?

 

Here’s something you could say for a descriptive phrase, I suppose. If a person is 19th century, it’s not as risky to put a descriptive phrase on, because the person has passed and, at least in principle, you know the variety of what the person did. If it’s a contemporary person, it’s harder to predict what he might do in the future. As I said, who knows what kind of job a “Research and Knowledge Impact Officer” might do next?

 

So birth and death dates are better for contemporary people and occupational phrases are at least somewhat better for people in the past, in my opinion (if you don’t have dates for them).

 

Ted Gemberling

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Christine DeZelar-Tiedman
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 4:09 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Tom Watson (Children's story writer)

 

I would amend number 5 to read: "Prefer birth/death dates when available." 

 

In some cases I would not prefer active dates over a descriptive phrase, given that the cataloger may miss some publications, or others may be discovered that are before or after the active dates initially chosen for the heading. I've run into this a lot with pulp literature. The authors' names are often pseudonyms, and biographical information is not available. Active dates can be misleading, and a qualifying phrase like (Pulp literature writer) can be more useful.

 

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 1:27 PM, McDonald, Stephen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I believe John was indeed making suggestions for changes to both RDA and PCC policies.

 

                                                                                Steve McDonald

                                                                                [log in to unmask]

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 1:29 PM


To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Tom Watson (Children's story writer)

 

Regarding John's 6th and 7th points:

 

6. Go back one step and logically attach the qualifier “Fictional character” to the names of all such (e.g. “Kirk, James T. (Fictitious character : Science fiction, American”). [see below]

7. There are good reason for allowing the use of “multiple qualifiers” (or at least 2 when necessary). We already do it in geographic names (like: “Berlin (Conn. : Town”) and that pattern could be followed for names (like: “Lassie (Fictitious character : Dog)”).

 

RDA currently has no provision for this kind of qualifier on personal names (term space colon space another term).  It would require a change to RDA instructions for additions to a person's preferred name.  This is why RDA has examples like "(Fictitious character from Shakespeare)" rather than "(Fictitious character : Shakespeare)". 

Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900

 

 

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 9:49 AM -0700, "John Gordon Marr" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Ted hits a home run here and covers all the loose bases (at least tangentially)!

 

1.       Catalogers have to be saying to themselves: “I’ve got to look for variant usages [of] the name [at least in the database where I’m cataloging and on the Internet if reasonable] so I can cover them all in VAPs, and maybe I’ll find data to use as qualifiers as needed.”

 

2.       RDA seems designed to create inconsistency, just for the sake of “political correctness”, but when it reaches the level of promoting anarchy and dissention, it fails.

 

3.       Call if necessary, but be modern and practical: try email first. It’s also less stressful for all parties. Of course, one would try the Internet before that.

 

4.       There need not be any “pressure not to change AAPs”, and it can be eliminated simply by allowing VAPs for all changed forms. Does that approach really cause genuine havoc at our Mother Goddess LC?

 

5.       Prefer dates when available.” Period.

 

6.       Go back one step and logically attach the qualifier “Fictional character” to the names of all such (e.g. “Kirk, James T. (Fictitious character : Science fiction, American”). [see below]

 

7.       There are good reason for allowing the use of “multiple qualifiers” (or at least 2 when necessary). We already do it in geographic names (like: “Berlin (Conn. : Town”) and that pattern could be followed for names (like: “Lassie (Fictitious character : Dog)”).

 

8.       Change qualifiers to dates if dates become available. Retain the former headings as VAPs.” Period

 

9.       Everything discussed is like throwing used chewing gum at sacred brick walls until and unless such decisions can be reached by direct consensus of catalogers with direct input from patrons, rather than through bureaucratic committees of “elected” politicians.

 

Cheers!

 

John G. Marr

Collections

Zimmerman Library

University of New Mexico

Albuquerque, NM 87010

[log in to unmask]

 

         **"I really like to know the reasons for what I do!"**

                                             Martha Watson

 

Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but sharing is permitted.

 

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ted P Gemberling
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2016 3:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Tom Watson (Children's story writer)

 

Richard,

This creates an image in my mind of catalogers saying to themselves, “I’ve got to look for variant usage for the name so I can add the qualifier that should’ve been added to the AAP in the first place!” I appreciate your dedication to and familiarity with the rules, but I wonder if this creates an absurd situation.

 

What a lot of headaches it would’ve saved us if the cataloger had just called Watson in the first place! As catalogers, I think most of us want to do things right. Probably that cataloger did, too, but he or she may have been discouraged from contacting authors.

 

Since we have pressure on us not to change AAP’s, especially if there is bibliographic maintenance involved, I suppose this makes a strong case for the URI approach Stephen Hearn is recommending. That way the text string in the AAP is not so important. Information at the URI can be added or changed when it becomes available.

 

But I do think that as long as we are using text strings at all, it’s problematic to use qualifications besides dates if dates are available. Chronological order is one of the best ways we have to keep track of real people. (I specify real because I still don’t like the dates with James T. Kirk.) We should make an effort to get dates if we can, especially if the name is fairly common.

 

I realize using occupational qualifiers is good as a last resort. But since, unlike dates, which are structured from centuries to years, months, and days, occupations don’t have any definite structure (who knows what a Research and Knowledge Impact Officer might do on his next job?), it seems rather risky to use them routinely.

 

Thanks,

Ted Gemberling

UAB Lister Hill Library

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2016 2:02 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Tom Watson (Children's story writer)

 

Ted

 

Paradoxically (and without RDA in front of me to check), although a Variant Name is a prerequisite for creating a Variant Access Point, I don't think there's is any prohibition on going on to create multiple Variant Access Points using the same Variant Name followed by different qualifiers! So I support Adam's suggestion for change, subject to some kind of caveat to deter people from routinely creating multiple variants rather than recording the authority data in the appropriate fields. 

 

Regards

Richard

Authority Control Team Manager

The British Library  


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Ted P Gemberling [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 13 May 2016 20:15
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Tom Watson (Children's story writer)

Richard,

Okay, I can see your point. I still think there would’ve been some value in specifying what the rule excludes. As I said, does it allow you to add multiple qualifiers to the variant name? If the rule said “When constructing a variant access point to represent a person, do not create it simply to add more qualifiers,” there would be no ambiguity about that.  

 

Ted Gemberling

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 12:51 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Tom Watson (Children's story writer)

 

Ted

 

I think 9.19.2.1 is clear. RDA has the element Name, which has sub-types Preferred Name and Variant Name. "Variant name" isn't a vague expression of an idea, it's a very specific thing in RDA. It's a form of name that was not chosen as the Preferred Name. This instruction simply tells you what kind of name to use in the Variant Access Point; that is, a Variant Name. Not the Preferred Name.

 

There's no requirement that qualifiers (or the presence of qualifiers) on 100 and 400 should match. None at all. An LCRI used to mandate this when we used AACR2, but there is no corresponding LC-PCC-PS for RDA. LC chose deliberately not to make one. It's entirely unremarkable that a unique 100 might have no qualifier, but a 400 gets added with a qualifier, because it is more common and the cataloguer wants to distinguish it.

 

Exactly the same qualifiers are available to add to Preferred Names and to Variant Names, in the construction of Authorized and Variant Access Points. It might often be tidier for them to match, but it's not required.

 

Regards

Richard

 


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Ted P Gemberling [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 13 May 2016 18:16
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Tom Watson (Children's story writer)

Richard,

You’re probably right. I think 9.19.2.1 is confusing in a way. The opening sentence almost seems like a tautology: “When constructing a variant access point to represent a person, use a variant name for the person.” If that was meant to exclude something, it would be clearer if it stated it explicitly: “When constructing a variant access point to represent a person, do not create it simply to add more qualifiers.”

 

I can see your point that the second part of the section is probably just saying “add qualifiers to that variant name if considered important for identification.” But worded as it is, “Make additions to the name, if considered important for identification,” it seems to imply the possibility that the variant name could lack qualifiers while the AAP does not. We usually put the same qualifiers on the variant name that we put on the AAP, though not 100% of the time. At any rate, the wording implies that the qualifiers on the 400 could be independent of the qualifiers on the 100.

 

You wrote: “So if the 100 were Watson, Tom, then a 400 variant access point might be Watson, Thomas. If you consider it important for identification you could make an addition to that: Watson, Thomas (Children's story writer), or Watson, Thomas, 1965- .”

 

But surely you’re not implying that if we happened to have the usage “Thomas Watson,” we could add more qualifiers to that name but not to Tom Watson, are you? It wouldn’t make sense to allow Watson, Thomas, 1965- but not Watson, Tom, 1965-.

 

Ted Gemberling

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 6:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Tom Watson (Children's story writer)

 

Tom

 

It looks perfectly consistent to me. You take a variant name for the person (not the preferred name), and you make additions to it if considered it important for identification.

 

So if the 100 were Watson, Tom, then a 400 variant access point might be Watson, Thomas. If you consider it important for identification you could make an addition to that: Watson, Thomas (Children's story writer), or Watson, Thomas, 1965- .

 

What RDA doesn't currently allow you to do is to use in 400 the preferred name (Watson, Tom) that you have already used in the 100. The 400 has to be based on a variant name. But you can make all the same additions to a variant name as you can to a preferred name.

 

Regards

Richard

Authority Control Team Manager

The British Library

 

----

 

Program for Cooperative Cataloging [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Ted P Gemberling [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 12 May 2016 19:58
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Tom Watson (Children's story writer)

I don’t understand how Watson, Tom, 1965- is even contrary to 9.19.2.1. Could it be that people haven’t been reading down to the bottom of the screen to see that, after the part about adding variant access points based on variant names, there is whole section for “make additions to the name, if considered important for identification,” following the instructions at 9.19.1.2-9.19.1.8? Included there at 9.19.1.3 is “date of birth and/or death.”

 

So, are we to interpret those two sections as mutually exclusive, so that if there are 4XX’s based on variant names, there cannot be 4XX’s with dates? I don’t really see anything in the rule that indicates they’re exclusive.

 

Ted Gemberling

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Knop, Judy
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 1:34 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Tom Watson (Children's story writer)

 

What happened to RDA as a set of “guidelines” rather than rules?  My understanding has been that the only disallowed references were those not created according to RDA guidelines for the creation of AAPs.  Are we really supposed to take the RDA wording as a proscriptive statement of what is allowed and therefore, disallowed?

 

Judy Knop

 

ATLA NACO/CONSER Funnel Coordinator

[log in to unmask]

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 1:18 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Tom Watson (Children's story writer)

 

Jay

 

For better or worse, your proposed 400 runs up against RDA 9.19.2.1 (my italics):

 

“When constructing a variant access point to represent a person, use a variant name for the person (see 9.2.3) as the basis for the access point.”

 

That is, and strictly speaking, we can’t have 400s that are based on the preferred name used in the authorized access point.

 

What we can do is make sure the date is recorded as a data element in 046.

 

 

Regards

Richard

 

________________________

Richard Moore

Authority Control Team Manager

The British Library

                                                                       

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546104                                  

E-mail: [log in to unmask]      

 

“You’re very clever, young man, very clever. But it’s turtles all the way down.”                  

 

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Shorten, Jay
Sent: 11 May 2016 22:30
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Tom Watson (Children's story writer)

 

I would also add a 400 with Watson, Tom, $d 1965-  . The first place I always look to identify someone is the dates, since they come conveniently right after the plain name. Then I look for Name $q, then for Name $c, and only then do I wade through the tedious Name, Intial/Middle Name.

 

(I guess I should also take the opportunity to advertise PERSNAME-L, the list about personal names in bibliographic and authority records, while I’m at it. You can subscribe here: https://lists.ou.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=PERSNAME-L&A=1 )

 

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]

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ted P Gemberling
Sent: 11 May 2016 15:03
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Tom Watson (Children's story writer)

 

Michael,

Please also add a 670 with the information you found.

 

Was it difficult to reach Watson? I wonder if we should make it a practice to make an effort to reach contemporary authors before setting up occupational qualifiers. I recently encountered the heading “Williams, Chris ǂc (Research and knowledge exchange impact officer)” (n 2015187569). That’s an awfully specific job title. What good will it do if he gets another job? Since I don’t know much about the “research and knowledge exchange impact” industry, how will I be able to make the judgment that it’s the same person?

 

Ted Gemberling

UAB Lister Hill Library

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 12:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Tom Watson (Children's story writer)

 

The most important thing in OCLC is to uncontrol the Watson headings from the wrong authority and control them with the right authority. As Michael notes, once the headings are controlled by the correct authority, any changes to that authority's 1XX will be picked up by the bib records.  In terms of practical beneficial effect, controlling headings with the right authority is more important than changing the authorized heading to something better.  

 

Stephen

 

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Moore, Richard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I think the result should be 667 “Do not confuse with” notes in all the NARs that could be confused ;-) This might also be a case where 672 and 673 fields could come in handy…

 

Regards

Richard

 

________________________

Richard Moore

Authority Control Team Manager

The British Library

                                                                       

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546104                                  

E-mail: [log in to unmask]      

 

“You’re very clever, young man, very clever. But it’s turtles all the way down.”                  

 

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Borries
Sent: 11 May 2016 15:44
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Tom Watson (Children's story writer)

 

Dear collective wisdoms,

 

I believe a situation similar to the one I am about to describe was discussed previously on at least one of these lists (and I apologize for the cross posting), but I don’t remember what the resolution was (if there was one), and I think this may be a little different in several respects.

 

The author of the Stick Dog and Stick Cat children’s books is Watson, Tom (Children’s story writer) (NAR nb2014002382).  However, 58 records (if I did the arithmetic correctly) have incorrect headings for this author, either without a qualifier, or with the wrong dates (one record has “1949-“, all the others have “1962-“).

 

I contacted the Tom Watson who writes the children’s stories.  He gave me both a date of birth and a middle name.  He is not the Tom Watson born in 1949 or 1962 (he was born in 1965).

 

My problem with leaving the heading as it is, in addition to the preference for dates as the means of differentiation, is that the Tom Watson who writes children’s stories also did a number of other things that are unrelated to children’s stories, as the authority record makes clear, although it seems as if the children’s stories are the only things published, at least so far (books on speech writing are not his).  Also, since there are many headings that are simply incorrect anyway, there will be the need for cleanup locally and in OCLC no matter which way we go (only 21 additional records need be changed if I change the heading, and the authority record will take care of those in OCLC).

 

Thoughts?

 

Michael

 

Michael S. Borries

Cataloger, City University of New York

151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor

New York, NY  10010

Phone: (646) 312-1687

Email: [log in to unmask]

 


 
******************************************************************************************************************

Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk

The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html

Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabook

The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled

*****************************************************************************************************************

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the [log in to unmask] : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.

The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.

*****************************************************************************************************************

Think before you print



 

--

Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist

Data Management & Access, University Libraries

University of Minnesota

160 Wilson Library

309 19th Avenue South

Minneapolis, MN 55455

ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242



 

--

Christine DeZelar-Tiedman
Manager, Archives and Special Collections Metadata Unit
University of Minnesota Libraries
160 Wilson Library                      (612) 625-0381 PH
309 19th Ave. S.                        (612) 625-3428 FAX
Minneapolis, MN 55455               [log in to unmask]