But what if it’s a discrepancy of 10 years? 20 years?
I’d say 20 years is serious because we often think of that as a generation. Sons with the same names often continue the works of their fathers, at least in medicine where I catalog. If I see a new edition by a person with the same name 20 years after the author was supposed to have died or ceased to be active, I assume it’s his son.
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Richard Amelung
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 12:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Dates of activity
I'd say leave it alone. One can always add a 670 with further information. There are also the more recently added 672/673 fields as well to record titles associated with the person. Doing that frames not only the dates but also the subject matter.
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 12:19 PM, John Hostage <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
A colleague has found additional information about a 16th century person who has already been established with active dates. She would like to revise the AAP to show the new information (a difference of 4 years). My thought is that this kind of dates is inherently subjective and variable and shouldn't be changed unless egregiously wrong. Otherwise we could have an endless series of changes. Is that the general consensus?
Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
Langdell Hall 194
Harvard Law School Library
Cambridge, MA 02138
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917
Richard C. Amelung, Ph. D.
Professor Emeritus of Legal Research
Vincent C. Immel Law Library
Saint Louis University School of Law
100 N. Tucker Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63101-1930
Tel.: 314-977-2743 Fax: 314-977-3966