I'm now persuaded by Moore, Hearn, Lasater, Leslie (et al. further on, no doubt) that this device should be deployed as minimally as possible. It appears that we are tempted to use 1XX and 4XX fields for information retrieval, rather than the focusing of index values, given limitations of our current front ends: building a "legacy", so to speak.

BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Christopher D. Cook <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
We also need better indexing and searching capabilities for the data we have. For bibliographic searching, I can easily limit a search to a year or range of years. If I want to find the John Smiths born between 1837 and 1850 I should be able to do the same thing if dates are encoded in an 046. Perhaps I've missed the boat, but is there a way to do this? If not, why are putting this information in?

Christopher D. Cook
Special Collections Cataloging Coordinator
The Ohio State University

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 9:15 AM, Stephen Hearn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
The real problem is reliance on an authorized access point or variant as summary information about a person. The AAP is too brief for identification purposes. I agree with Mary Charles Lasater that multiplying these inadequate nomens is not our best course.

We need instead a paradigm shift toward thinking about the information associated with an identity as constellated data to be displayed with the preferred name in a different model of indexing--not just a list of preformulated access points each of which must be examined, but a concatenation of useful facts about the person already displayed in the initial search response, just like most brief displays of bib records consist of a concatenation of useful facts about the resource. 

When system are better able to use domain-specified identifiers to compare and collocate records and to use the full extent of the authority file's specified data elements to enable identification, we'll all be better off.

(Is there an irony that after a long and lively career in authority control I find myself advocating for the end of the authorized access point? Yes, there is, and it's ... delicious.)


On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Amy Turner <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I think that controlled use of this sort of variant would make searching easier rather than more difficult.  With common names, one often encounters a long list of the same name with different dates, and it takes a while to determine which (if any) is the one sought.  References such as Smith, John (artist) to Smith, John, 1957- would be useful.  As someone else has pointed out, proliferation of variants such as artist, illustrator and painter would be messy.


As for the case when there is a 400 that we need to use as a 100, we could change the 400 to a 500.


Amy Turner (also close to retirement)


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]OV] On Behalf Of Lasater, Mary Charles
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 8:17 AM

To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] 400 for variant $c qualifier?




Not only is it excessive, but it makes searching for the correct ‘entity’ more difficult and makes it more difficult to qualify a name to make it ‘unique’.


When I am trying to break a name off an undifferentiated authority record (consider  ‘illustrator’ or ‘actor’), I often encounter another person  with that ‘role.’ How would we handle an existing 400 field with that qualifying term, if we needed it for the 100 of the authority record we want to establish?


It is fairly common for me to find a unique authority record already established for the entity I am trying to remove from the undifferentiated authority. The presence of the qualifiers makes the searching much more time consuming.   


My 2 cents,


Mary Charles Lasater

(counting down to retirement!)


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]OV] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 2:16 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] 400 for variant $c qualifier?


It does seem a little excessive to create a proliferation of variant access points using the preferred name. Recording different occupations is the role of the 374 field.







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]OV] On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: 22 March 2017 17:10
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] 400 for variant $c qualifier?


From a practical point of view, I would discourage the proliferation of variant access points distinguished by qualifiers in the same general field or activity. "Painter" and "illustrator"? No. "Painter" and "accountant"? Possibly.


Deborah J. Leslie, MA, MLS | Senior Cataloger, Folger Shakespeare Library | [log in to unmask] | 201 East Capitol Street, S.E. | Washington, DC 20003 | 202.675-0369 | orcid.org 0000-0001-5848-5467


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]OV] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Wednesday, 22 March, 2017 13:00
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] 400 for variant $c qualifier?



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.




Bob: And I hope there won’t be any such LC-PCC Policy Statements. A conscious decision was made at the beginning of RDA to leave the decision about whether to include variants or not up to the cataloger’s judgment. I’m in favor of leaving it that way.




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.



BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187



Matthew C. Haugen
Rare Book Cataloger
102 Butler Library
Columbia University Libraries
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Phone: 212-851-2451


Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk

The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html

Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabook

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

Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Data Management & Access, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
160 Wilson Library
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242