Print

Print


Stephen,
Adjusting the 046 dates would be helpful to patrons if they were publically accessible, if we could tell people that “the dates in the AAP are not necessarily accurate.” But as long as the dates are part of the AAP, it seems they’re likely to cause some confusion for people, at least if there is a discrepancy of 20 years, as I said.

Ted Gemberling

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 2:04 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Dates of activity

In addition to adding a 670, are we agreed that the 046 activity dates can be adjusted freely when the AAP activity dates are not being changed? Or do 046 and 100 $d have to match? The argument for uncoupling them would be that the 046 dates are data about the person and ought to reflect our best information, while the 100 $d dates are primarily a piece of differentiating text for the AAP and as such don't need to be optimized for accuracy in the case of inherently fluid "active" dates.

Stephen

On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Gemberling, Ted P <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
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.

Ted Gemberling

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Richard Amelung
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 12:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[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.

Richard

On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 12:19 PM, John Hostage <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[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?

------------------------------------------
John Hostage
Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
Langdell Hall 194
Harvard Law School Library
Cambridge, MA 02138
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
+(1)(617) 495-3974<tel:%2B%281%29%28617%29%20495-3974> (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409<tel:%2B%281%29%28617%29%20496-4409> (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<tel:314-977-2743>   Fax: 314-977-3966<tel:314-977-3966>



--
Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Data Management & Access, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
160 Wilson Library
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Ph: 612-625-2328
Fx: 612-625-3428
ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242