Print

Print


The instruction quoted from 1.8.1 is about transcribed elements, and none of the elements in authority records are really transcribed elements.  It has long been policy to record dates in 670 in an unambiguous manner, if possible.  In DCM Z1, 670, it states "To facilitate international contribution and use of authority records, when giving record dates, generally use the spelled out or abbreviated forms for months as the U.S. practice for recording dates using numerals differs from the practice in some other countries. (For dates recorded using automated authority generation programs, see the Format of 670 fields section of this document.)    Do not change the style of dates in existing records.  As a best practice, if a date is not included in subfield $d of the 100 field, consider adding a 046 field if dates are available."

As already noted, dates in 046 are recorded according to EDTF, which is an extension of ISO 8601. (LC-PCC PS 9.3.1.3)



------------------------------------------
John Hostage
Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
Langdell Hall 194
Harvard Law School Library
Cambridge, MA 02138
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917
________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Ian Fairclough [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 08:44
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] recording date of birth in field 670 of name authority records

Dear PCCLIST readers,



There has been some discussion, on this list or elsewhere, concerning recording dates.  Earlier this year I got several helpful responses to a post with subject "Format of date of birth in LAC record".  This time I'd like to question how people are recording dates, in particular “as found” versus “as recorded”, in name authority records.



It seems to be generally accepted that the ISO 8601 format is what to use when recording a date in field 046 of a name authority record.  But when the source of the date presents that information in a different way, I believe that it is appropriate to record the date as "data found" in field 670.



Accordingly, if in response to a request for information required to create a NAR a correspondent provides a date of birth, the cataloger would record the date in whatever format the correspondent provides it, in field 670.  The year will then be used in field 100d, and the date of birth coded in field 046.  Provided that the cataloger can properly interpret what the correspondent wrote: if not, only the year should be put in 046. Please note: When corresponding in this manner, I ask for the year of birth, not date, and occasionally get the full date in the response.  With an exception in the extremely rare cases in which the year alone is insufficient for disambiguation due to a conflict.



I believe that this is how we should proceed, however I'm not sure that RDA 9.3.1.3 Recording Date Associated with Person is clear about this.  Unusually for RDA, no link back to 1.9, the more general instruction about recording dates, is present.  1.9 has a link to 1.8, and 1.8.1 has: When recording numbers expressed as numerals or as words in a transcribed element, transcribe them in the form in which they appear on the source of information.



Sincerely - Ian

Ian Fairclough
Cataloging and Metadata Services Librarian
George Mason University
703-993-2938
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>