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]> 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]] 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.

 

Richard

 

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?

 

------------------------------------------

John Hostage

Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger

Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services

Langdell Hall 194

Harvard Law School Library

Cambridge, MA 02138

+(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



 

--

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