Concerning the link in the RDA toolkit, I wrote to James Hennelly, the director of ALA Digital Reference (responsible for the toolkit) about this in July.  At the time, he said it might not make it into the August release.  I guess it didn’t make it into the October release either.

 

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

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]

+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)

+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian Fairclough
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 15:50
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] active author requires disambiguation - confusion in RDA/LC-PCC PS

 

Dear PCCLIST readers,

 

(1) RDA 9.19.1.5 has:

Include the period of activity of the person (see 9.3.4[log in to unmask]" alt="http://access.rdatoolkit.org/images/rdalink.png">) if needed to distinguish one authorized access point from another. Include this element when the person's date of birth or date of death is not available …

A link to LC-PCC PS is present.  A second link is present next to the Optional Addition, which reads:

Include the period of activity of the person even if there is no need to distinguish between access points.

 

I'm confused because of the presence of two links from 9.19.1.5, one from the main instruction, the other from the optional addition.   The LC-PCC PS actually applies to the addition, thus:

 

New Authority Records

LC practice/PCC practice for Optional addition: Generally do not apply …

 

So I think that the link from the main instruction should be removed. There isn’t an LCC-PS to apply to the main instruction, just one to the optional addition.

 

(2) Having survived this small diversion, and determined that the instruction should indeed apply to the case in hand, disambiguation being necessary, I question whether, for an author who appears to have written his first book, the qualifier should have a hyphen, thus: active 2015-

or if it should just read: active 2015

 

I'm inclined towards including the hyphen because, if this person has a lifetime of writing ahead of him (from a picture on the cover, I'd judge him to be in his twenties or early thirties) then it will become misleading to have labeled his period of activity as "2015".

 

(3) This situation has arisen because other attempts to disambiguate have failed.  The author is Russian, name Сергей Медведев (title Пустые коробки). I checked out all available NARs plus did a "Browse WorldCat" and looked at various namesakes with middle names/patronymics, and this truly seems to be his first appearance on the bibliographic scene.

 

If anyone can help further with this specific case, possibly a specialist in 21st century Russian prose/poetry, and have access to sources unavailable to me, perhaps even a means of contacting him to request birth year, then I'd be grateful to hear from you.

 

Sincerely - Ian

 

Ian Fairclough

Cataloging and Metadata Services Librarian

George Mason University

703-993-2938

[log in to unmask]