“Jr.” is part of the name in RDA, which is different from AACR2. If “Jr.” is part of the most commonly known form of the person’s name it is part of the preferred name and therefore should be in the authorized access point. Since the machine recoding of records from AACR2 to RDA that has taken place (and will continue to take place under Phase 3) has no way of taking into account whether the preferred name is RDA-compliant in matters like relationship suffixes, yes, you should change the authorized access point even if the record has been recoded “RDA”.

 

By the way, when adding death dates to authorized access points with birth dates (or vice versa, when adding birth dates to authorized access points that have death dates) there is no requirement to retain the form of the preferred name found if you have reason to believe that some other form is a more commonly known form. You’re already making a change by adding the date, so other changes to the authorized access point aren’t “needless”. It’s no harder for systems to add a death date to an authorized access point than it is for them to make any other kind of a change to the AAP.

 

But adding a relationship suffix isn’t an example of a needless change. It’s part of the name in RDA.

 

Bob

 

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Shorten, Jay
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 4:09 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: n 50083205 and adding Jr. when upgrading names

 

I recently closed n  50083205 Espenshade, Edward Bowman, d 1910- , which was already coded as the RDA form, to Espenshade, Edward Bowman, d 1910-2008 . It has been pointed out to me that the source I quoted and some bibliographical records have “Jr.” as part of the name. Should I therefore have upgraded the name to Espenshade, Edward Bowman, ‡c Jr., ‡d 1910-2008 ? I had the idea somehow that when closing dates, if the name is indicated to be RDA or RDA-compatible, for the sake of not making needless changes, you accept the name heading as is and you don’t completely re-cast the name into an RDA form unless there is either an error in the name or the date or it has the dreaded 667 note.

 

e.g. In adding the death date to Espenshade, Gilbert H. ‡q (Gilbert Howry), ‡d 1912- you would not re-cast the name as Espenshade, Gilbert H., ‡d 1912-1992, even though that is a valid RDA form, since the current form is equally valid under RDA. But if it turned up that he was born in 1913 or that his middle name was Lowry and not Howry, then you could re-cast the name to Espenshade, Gilbert L., ‡d 1913-1992.

 

So I guess another of asking this question is: Is the absence of “Jr” in the name considered an error?

 

Jay Shorten

Cataloger, Monographs and Electronic Resources

Associate Professor of Bibliography

Catalog Department

University Libraries

University of Oklahoma

Co-owner, PERSNAME-L, the list about personal names in bibliographic and authority records

[log in to unmask]