This is an example of a variant access point based on the preferred name. It has not been uncommon to include variant access points like this in the past. PCC has not proscribed any types of variants (to my knowledge), like it did before the advent of RDA. Nor does RDA require any variant access points at all. Catalogers should ask themselves whether the variant helps the user of the catalog find the authorized access point. If in their judgment it does they can record the variant access point. This is totally a matter of judgment.
There is a technical wrinkle. Current RDA 9.19.2 (Variant access point representing a person) says:
When constructing a variant access point to represent a person, use a variant name for person (see 9.2.3) as the basis for the access point. Include additional elements if considered important for identification.
This implies (at least) that variant access points based on the preferred name (vs. a variant name) are not permitted. This has somewhat universally been ignored, including in the NACO training modules. Recognizing this, and wanting to give more flexibility to the creation of variant access points, RSC is revising the language of 9.19.2 in this April’s RDA revision to read:
When constructing a variant access point to represent a person, use a name of person (see 9.2.1) as the basis for the access point. Include additional elements in the variant access point as appropriate.
In other words, it is no longer required to base a variant access point on a variant name; it can be based on any name including the preferred name.
So, in short (after the long explanation), if your cataloger wishes to make a variant access point “Smith, John (Illustrator)” for an authorized access point “Smith, John (Painter)” that’s fine if in his/her judgment it would help the user find the authorized access point. It probably depends on the situation.
Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 8:48 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: 400 for variant $c qualifier?
From an acting (not real, I just play one) NACO Coordinator:
One of our catalogers is including/adding 400s differentiated only by a variant $c qualifiers for field of activity/profession, e.g. 100 with (Painter), 400 with (Illustrator), for the same form of name. Nothing like this in RDA 9.19.2, which, granted, does not abound with permutations of variation.
Is this legit? I've seen (or can recall) no examples.