Print

Print


My thanks for Matthew's and Benjamin's responses. I was about to convey to
our cataloger pretty much what the latter said: "The purpose of qualifiers
is to make a name unique, not to express every possible career that an
individual has had." This qualifier is adequate for that purpose, and
correct as to the person's principal vocation; thus no purpose is served by
a 400 with a variant qualifier, though the additional 670 information about
other activities aids in correct application of the AP. Happiness all round.

Consider what a comprehensive qualifier for a truly "Renaissance" person
might look like ...

RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
<Richard_Noble@Br <[log in to unmask]>own.edu>

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Matthew C. Haugen <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Richard, you're not alone in questioning this. I also recall a
> discussion on PCC list earlier this year. RDA as written would seem to
> prevent the construction of variant access points based on a preferred
> name, but these types of variants nonetheless appear frequently in the NAF.
>
> That said, ALA has submitted an RDA revision proposal seeking to clarify
> this issue and to provide greater flexibility to construct variant access
> points based on a preferred name.
>
> http://www.rda-rsc.org/RSC/ALA/3
>
> But we will have to see what the RSC decides on this proposal during their
> meeting in Frankfurt, in a couple weeks.
>
> Matt
>
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> I think this has come up before on the pcc list so you may want to search
>> the archive for a fuller discussion. But if you look to the rules: RDA
>> 9.19.1 on constructing access points states, “When constructing an
>> authorized access point to represent a person, use the *preferred name*
>> for the person (see 9.2.2) as the basis for the authorized access point.”
>> Whereas, 9.19.2 on variant access points says, “When constructing a variant
>> access point to represent a person, use a *variant name* for the person
>> (see 9.2.3) as the basis for the access point.”
>>
>>
>>
>> RDA does not state, “Use the preferred name for a variant access point.”
>>
>> I’m sure some would argue that there are problems with this approach, and
>> indeed there may be other situations in which you would want to use the
>> preferred name plus a different set of qualifiers. But at least in these
>> cases, it strikes me as gilding the lilly. The purpose of qualifiers is to
>> make a name unique, not to express every possible career that an individual
>> has had.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Benjamin Abrahamse
>>
>> Cataloging Coordinator
>>
>> Acquisitions & Discovery Enhancement
>>
>> MIT Libraries
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> OV] *On Behalf Of *Noble, Richard
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 26, 2016 12:33 PM
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* [PCCLIST] Variant Parenthetical Designation as 400
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm being presented with ARs for a name with a variant parenthetical
>> designation as a 400, e.g. "100 Name (Teacher of mathematics)" and "400
>> Name (Mathematician)"; in another case "100 Name (Pianist)" and a newly
>> added "400 Name (Composer and pianist)" in response to information
>> presented in a newly cited source.
>>
>>
>>
>> This  doesn't seem quite right somehow, but I can't find any positive
>> negative example (so to call it) to justify my uneasiness.
>>
>>
>>
>> With thanks from a less than coordinated Acting NACO Coordinator -
>>
>>
>>
>> RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
>>
>> BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
>>
>> <Richard_Noble@Br <[log in to unmask]>own.edu>
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> --
> Matthew C. Haugen
> Rare Book Cataloger
> 102 Butler Library
> Columbia University Libraries
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> Phone: 212-851-2451
>
>