Print

Print


Thanks Bob, that matched my thinking -- I'll add the dates.

in solidarity,

Netanel Ganin
------------------------------------------------------------
Metadata Coordinator -- Hebrew Specialty
Brandeis University
(781) 736-4645 / [log in to unmask]

My pronouns are he/him/his


On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Robert Maxwell <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> The policy statement you cite is for *new* authority records. With a new
> authority record, if you know the dates for the person, you should include
> them in all the access points, both authorized and variant.
>
>
>
> The part of the policy statement that deals with *existing* authority
> records only applies to the authorized access point. We don’t add dates to
> authorized access points that don’t already have them simply to add the
> dates, unless there is some other reason we are changing the authorized
> access point.
>
>
>
> The policy statement says nothing at all about variant access points in
> existing authority records. Also, there is no NACO policy (as there was
> before RDA) about having to “match” the variant access point treatment to
> the authorized access point treatment. So it is perfectly fine to add birth
> and/or death dates to variant access points in existing authority records,
> even if the authorized access point doesn’t have them. I do this myself
> routinely, both when I add a new variant access point, and when I adjust an
> existing variant access point to add dates.
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> Robert L. Maxwell
> Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> (801)422-5568 <(801)%20422-5568>
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> gov] *On Behalf Of *Netanel Ganin
> *Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2017 10:58 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* VAPs and LC-PCC-PS 9.19.1.3
>
>
>
> Happy early [long for some] weekend!
>
>
>
> When adding a variant access point to an *existing* authority record
> [updating a NAR to RDA and have encountered a variant name for a person,
> and note that there's no conflict ]
>
>
>
> Instructions for VAPs at 9.19.2.1 state:
>
>
>
> "Include additional elements if considered important for identification.
> Apply the instructions at 9.19.1.2–9.19.1.8, as applicable."
>
>
>
> Which of course leads me to 9.19.1.3 and its LC-PCC-PS which states
>
>
>
> "LC practice/PCC practice for Optional addition: Add a date of birth
> and/or date of death to *new authority records*, even if not needed to
> distinguish between access points." [emph mine]
>
>
>
> Thus am I to conclude that because this is not a new authority record, but
> a new *access point* in an existing authority record. I am free to not
> add the date to the VAP? [I will be adding date as per my cat judge of the
> optional addition] I'm just curious if my reading is correct.
>
>
>
> thanks!
>
>
> in solidarity,
>
>
>
> Netanel Ganin
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Metadata Coordinator -- Hebrew Specialty
>
> Brandeis University
>
> (781) 736-4645 / [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> My pronouns are he/him/his
>
>
>