Everett Allgoodmy two cents,As you can probably by this point tell, I believe that the RDA approach to NACO Entity Descriptions is wise. And that yes indeed, Christopher Robin, the fictitious character is eligible for a Name Entity Identifier.... as well as Christopher Robin -- the author of the 2004 work, Flung, and all of the Christopher Robins who have lived but may not yet be established within the world's assorted Authority Files. And of course, all of those Christopher Robins not yet born.Robin, Christopher, $c (Fictitious character)Robin, Christopher, $d 1953-Robin, Christopher, $d 1908-Getting back to our "Christopher Robin" example, Users and Information Consumers need to be able to quickly and easily distinguish between:Whereas AACR2 was almost exclusively concerned with Item descriptions, the primary focus of RDA (again, IMHO) is upon Entities and the Relationships between and among those Entities. If any conceivable Entity (and its Relationships) is now eligible for description within our Bibliographic and Authority files, then we as Librarians and players within the Information Landscape must be able to Identify each of those Entities uniquely and unambiguously, right?One of the things that RDA has done very well (in my opinion) is to discard the "Bibliographic Warrant" prerequisite for NACO & SACO Identifiers. In doing so, RDA has expanded the universe of Entities eligible to be described unambiguously within controlled language vocabularies. And this is critical as libraries and the Information Community moves forward.With AACR2 and its emphasis on describing Items, NACO Catalogers relied largely upon "bibliographic warrant" in order to establish names, titles, subjects, geographic areas, etc. That is, there needed to be a bibliographic resource libraries would be interested in acquiring for their collections in order for a NACO or SACO Cataloger to create a Name or Subject Authority Record for an Entity.But to my understanding of the AACR2 and RDA Cataloging Standards, this question of whether or not a given Entity (in this case, the fictitious character Christopher Robin) is "eligible" for a NACO Name Authority Record is really critical.Dear Pete and Netanel :Hi -- I may be completely off-base on this and if so, I will rely on our colleagues to quickly set me straight (smile!).On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Netanel Ganin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:Thanks for the thoughts Pete, I was mostly concerned that there was some pressing 'Official' reason that subject had been used (though having checked LC's own catalog [which I should've done before] I see that though the heading is on at least one DLC record, it isn't in LC's catalog)best,On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Wilson, Pete <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I agree that Christopher Robin is not Christopher Milne.
My only question is: do we really need a fictitious character heading for Christopher Robin? We don’t make one for every fictitious character. The dubious assertion that certain books were fiction about the real-life Christopher Milne seems to have been thought by at least one cataloger to have been of interest for cataloging purposes, but I’m not sure there’s a call for a heading for Christopher Robin the fictitious character, unless he has been a character in some non-Pooh-related books, or a subject of nonfiction books. Which may well be.
While cataloging a Winnie-the-Pooh Hebrew translation, I ran into an oddity. I wanted to run it by some wisdom lest I run afoul of an established practice.
I note that there are a few records in OCLC for Winnie-the-Pooh related resources which have a subject heading of
600 1 0 Milne, Christopher 1920-1996. Juvenile fiction
(Indeed, the OCLC record I was working from had the same heading)
It seems to this cataloger that Christopher Robin, though based on the actual son of A.A. Milne, is a distinct person in his own right and his appearances in fiction are not simply fictionalized appearances of Christopher Milne.
Alice (Fictitious character from Carroll) and
Hargreaves, Alice Pleasance Liddell, 1852-1934
Here the distinction has been drawn between a fictional character which shares a name with, and is based on, an actual person.
So what say you O Best Beloved, am I justified in creating:
Robin, Christopher (Fictitious character)? (actual AAP may vary)