One can’t be certain that a given user, especially an American, knows that “James” is a fuller form of “Jim”.  We probably should include something like that in the NAF ONLY if we can find it written down somewhere (for example, if an online search shows up an official document using the name “James” for someone who unofficially goes through life as a “Jim”). 


Aaron Kuperman, LC Law Cataloging Section.

This is not an official communication from my employer



From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 11:21 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] fuller form of name




Fuller form of name is:


“A name or names associated with a person that includes the fuller form of a part of any name represented only by an initial, abbreviation, or shortened or otherwise modified variant in the form chosen as the preferred name and/or a part of the name not included in the form chosen as the preferred name.”


I note “or otherwise modified variant”. In your examples, Jim can be a modified variant of James. And Ted, of Edward. So if we know that this is actually the case for individuals, from sources, then I think James can be a fuller form of Jim, and Edward, of Ted.


I also have in the back of my mind that a recent or forthcoming change to either RDA or the PS allows shorter forms to be used in $q when they are nicknames or familiar forms, but I can’t for the moment turn up a source for this.







Richard Moore

Authority Control Team Manager

The British Library


Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546104                                  

E-mail: [log in to unmask]      




From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian Fairclough
Sent: 29 March 2017 15:58
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] fuller form of name


PCCLIST readers,


I just came across a NAR having a “lesser” form of name!  Here’s how it looks:


Smith, Daniel ǂq (Dan)

with a reference the other way round:

Smith, Dan ǂq (Daniel)


Actually, not wishing to cause embarrassment, I changed the name for the purpose of this example – and looked it up in the NAR just in case this very example is also present (it’s not).  Should something be done, such as reporting the NAR? If so, to [log in to unmask] or elsewhere? I have no reason to attend to it otherwise.


And since this instance has come to light, it provokes me to inquire further concerning fuller forms.  If I understand correctly they must be found data in bibliographic sources, not simply supplied by the cataloger.  And “fullness” must be taken literally.  Here are some examples, made up for this email:


·         Jimmy is a fuller form of Jim, whereas James is not

·         both Danny and Daniel are fuller forms of Dan

·         Theodore is a fuller form of Ted (note the 1st, 3rd and 5th letters), but Edward is not

·         Smith, P.D.Q is fuller than Smith, Pretty Darn (three initials being fuller than two names)


Are they correct?  Sincerely - Ian


Ian Fairclough

Cataloging and Metadata Services Librarian

George Mason University


[log in to unmask]



Experience the British Library online at

The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts :

Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book.

The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled


The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the [log in to unmask] : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.

The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.


Think before you print