Because in OCLC there are records with that access point that are for a different person. NACO participants are allowed to consider conflicts in bib records even when there is no conflict in the NAF. We know that LC catalogers don't look in OCLC for access point conflicts, but many NACO participants do and they are permitted to break those conflicts if they wish. Adam Schiff Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ________________________________ From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Kuperman, Aaron <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 11:26:30 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Tom Jackson Why do you need to add a date (in the 100 field) to the older record, unless there is a conflict? I would have no trouble making such a change at LC. I copy the 670 and 010 and 400 (from the former 100) to the original record, and zap the new one. It doesn’t seem logical for OCLC to mandates such a change from what LC does. 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 Adam L. Schiff Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 2:20 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Tom Jackson The date would have to be added to the older record and OCLC probably won't allow that, because the 1XX would then be the same as another one that's already in the file (even though that one would then be cancelled). Easier to keep the record with the date and cancel the older one without. Adam Schiff Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ________________________________ From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Kuperman, Aaron <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 11:13:15 AM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Tom Jackson What’s the basis for preferring the newer record (that was needed in the first place) over the record that was established first. --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 Michael Borries Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 11:08 AM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Tom Jackson Would a 667 “Formerly also on NAR n 50027953 (as Jackson, Tom [no date])” work? Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 5:25 PM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Tom Jackson In the past we have used 667 Old heading: Jackson, Tom as a way around using a 4XX to preserve a formerly established AAP for an entity when the 4XX option has problems. Stephen On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Michael Borries <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: Well, if I can’t give a 400 field for an undated Tom Jackson, and I can’t give a 500 field for an undated Tom Jackson, what do I do? While it is true that there are *bib* records with undated Tom Jacksons who are not this one, the authority record was unique as it stood. It only referred to one Tom Jackson, the one born in 1932. Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687<tel:(646)%20312-1687> Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 5:07 PM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Tom Jackson Agreeing with Adam's comments-- RDA Appendix K.1 does allow for formulating new subfield $i texts, but the LC-PCC PS does not, at least when it comes to PCC records. Also, the MARC Authority 5XX fields are for related established headings. NACO says that each 5XX should match to an established 1XX. So I don't think a 500 field could work in this case, unless the undated heading is established for yet another Tom Jackson. And even then, there'd be ambiguity in such a reference, which would be referring to both the 100 heading for another person and the former heading for the TJ born in 1932. That seems too ambivalent for a subfield $i. Stephen On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Michael Borries <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: Would a 500 field with the text “ǂi Earlier form of heading: ǂa Jackson, Tom ǂw r” work? Is it allowed? Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687<tel:(646)%20312-1687> Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 3:26 PM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Tom Jackson If OCLC included a substantial number of "Jackson, Tom" headings controlled by the n 50027953 authority, one could make a case for changing its 100 to "Jackson, Tom, 1932-" (with the related name/title NARs) and deleting the other authority to resolve the conflicts and take advantage of OCLC's automated updating functionality. But I haven't found any of the many relevant bib records controlled by the undated authority. On the other hand, all the OCLC bib records for "Jackson, Tom, 1932-" are controlled by their authority, so in terms of dynamic relation to the bib file, that authority is more important. What I wound not do is add "400 1 $a Jackson, Tom $w nne" to the more recent authority. In our Alma catalog, that would have the effect of changing all our "Jackson, Tom" headings to "Jackson, Tom, 1932-", which we would prefer not to see happen. Likwewise, eliminating the authority for an undated heading in a case like this would be better for catalogs like ours. Changing the existing heading by adding the date would add the date willy-nilly to all our "Jackson, Tom" authors, since Alma automatically controls them (where OCLC does not.) Stephen On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Robert Maxwell <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: I agree with you. Even though n 50027953 isn't coded as undifferentiated it might as well be since you have discovered that in the bib file the access point has been used to represent more than one person. My opinion only, of course. If you do choose to keep nb2011032496 and have n 50027953 canceled, don't forget that there are some related NARs that will also need revision. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568<tel:(801)%20422-5568> "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. ________________________________ From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Michael Borries <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 10:41 AM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Tom Jackson This seems to be my week for finding duplicates. NAR n 50027953 is for Jackson, Tom, no dates, but still unique. NAR nb2011032496 is for Jackson, Tom, 1932-. These individuals are the same person, having written the same book, with a different title in Britain. There seem to be a great many records with the heading Jackson, Tom [no dates], but some of these seem not to be the Tom Jackson who writes books on how to get a job. But there seem to be far fewer records with the heading that includes the date. Still, because there are bib records which have headings with no date for a different Tom Jackson, I think it would be better to use the heading with the date as the authorized form, even though the form without the date was established earlier. What is the opinion of this forum? Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687<tel:(646)%20312-1687> Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> -- Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist Data Management & Access, University Libraries University of Minnesota 170A Wilson Library (office) 160 Wilson Library (mail) 309 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 Ph: 612-625-2328<tel:(612)%20625-2328> Fx: 612-625-3428<tel:(612)%20625-3428> ORCID: 0000-0002-3590-1242 -- Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist Data Management & Access, University Libraries University of Minnesota 170A Wilson Library (office) 160 Wilson Library (mail) 309 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 Ph: 612-625-2328<tel:(612)%20625-2328> Fx: 612-625-3428<tel:(612)%20625-3428> ORCID: 0000-0002-3590-1242 -- Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist Data Management & Access, University Libraries University of Minnesota 170A Wilson Library (office) 160 Wilson Library (mail) 309 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 Ph: 612-625-2328 Fx: 612-625-3428 ORCID: 0000-0002-3590-1242