I agree with Everett.
I think there’s a difference between your example and something like this:
Correcting the access point Smith, John, $d 1920-9185 to Smith, John, $d 1920-1985
In a case like this, there is a simple typo in the access point, which needs to be corrected, but I would not make a 4XX for the form that had the typo.
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Julian Everett Allgood
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 3:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: death date changed; 400?
Mary Jane :
Hi -- in a situation like the one you describe in which you are changing what was a previously valid 1XX access point, I believe it would be a disservice not to provide a 4XX with the previous form, and subfield $w nne.
It seems to me, there is every probability that the earlier "valid" form of the LC/NAF NAR with the incorrect death date has made it downstream into Bibliographic (and Authority) files within some library ILS systems beyond the national NACO file. That being the case, providing the 4XX cross-reference will allow systems to machine process the flip and will also prevent cataloger confusion.
And yes, when I have provided such NACO cross-references in the past both the DCM Z1 instruction and the NACO Personal Names FAQ always give me pause. My thought has always been though that if the cross-reference I am making was a previously distributed NACO 1XX access point that even one library catalog may have used in a Bib or Authority file, then the cross-reference is necessary.
Isn't that the altruistic point of cataloging for the greater good (i.e., PCC Cataloging)?
my two cents,
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Cuneo, Mary Jane <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hello Collective Wisdom,
While working with a personal name record, one of our catalogers discovered that the death date is no longer thought to be correct. A later edition of the initial reference source has amended the date accordingly, and our cataloger found another relatively recent reference source to corroborate as well. She has changed the date. Here’s how the record looks now (the relevant parts). 670-3 and 4 are new:
no 2005006024 Tamada, Gyokushūsai, ǂd 1856-1919 [death date was: 1921]
670 Jinbutsu refarensu jiten. Meiji, Taisho, Shōwa hen, 2000: ǂb p. 1273 (Tamada Gyokushūsai 2-dai; b. 1856 d. 1921; storyteller active during the Meiji and Taisho periods; famous for Tatsukawa bunko)
670 Nihon choshamei, jinmei tenkyoroku, 2002: ǂb p. 1267 (Tamada Gyokushūsai 2-daimei; b. 1856 d. 1921; storyteller; real name is Katō Manjirō; pen name Gyokurin)
670 Jinbutsu refarensu jiten. Meiji, Taishō, Shōwa (senzen) hen.II,2000-2009, 2010: ǂb p. 1190 (Tamada Gyokushūsai 2-dai; 1856-1919)
670 20-seiki Nihon jinmei jiten = Major 20th-century people in Japan, 2004: ǂb page 1599 (Tamada Gyokushūsai 2-daimei; 1856-1919; storyteller; real name is Katō Manjirō; pen name Gyokurin)
DCM Z1, under 4XX (General), says not to make a “4XX access point” from the old form when it contains a date recorded in error. The NACO Personal Names FAQ #12 says not to add the “inaccurate form” as a “cross reference.” However,
--in this case the death date was not recorded in error at the time; it reflected what was in reference sources
--a 400 would be helpful for machine processing of flips
--the 400 could be suppressed if it were felt patrons should not see it, so it would not generate a “cross reference” or an “access point”
--maybe patrons would benefit by seeing such a cross reference, since it represents more just than a cataloger’s error
Mary Jane Cuneo
Serials cataloging and NACO
Information and Technical Services