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

 

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

 

My pronouns are he/him/his