In a quite heated PCC-list discussion last spring, it was observed that 184.108.40.206 and its parallels in chapters 10 and 11 instruct us to create variant access points based on variant names, not on the preferred name.In that discussion, some argued that variant access points based on a preferred name are frequently created anyway, and may in at least some cases be necessary or desirable, though others argued that it's overkill, because in a case like yours, some qualifiers (e.g. graduate student) are too temporary, and proliferation of variants may lead to conflicts down the road.But based on that discussion, ALA put forward a revision proposal to allow greater flexibility in variants. The proposed changes approved by the RSC in November can be found here:So technically, I think it's not legit now, but in the April RDA toolkit update next month, you can expect to see 220.127.116.11 instruction change more formally allow the type of variant you describe:Current text: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.
New text: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.The RSC document linked above also shows some new examples.At that point, I suppose it will be a matter of cataloger's judgment and any forthcoming changes to LC-PCC PS to encourage or discourage any particular variants.Matt--On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Noble, Richard <[log in to unmask]> wrote: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.