Print

Print


That 667 field was added to any NAR with a 100 $c, that wasn’t on a list of valid RDA qualifiers that a Task Group I participated in could agree in fairly short order.  An awful lot of perfectly good RDA qualifiers weren’t on that list – if anyone had the slightest doubt about a qualifier, or thought the facts might need looking at again, it was left off. Some qualifiers just need punctuation changing. Much of this was due to be done in the now mythical Phase 3B LC/NAF RDA conversion. I agree the current example is probably fine.

 

 

Regards

Richard

 

________________________

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 Hostage, John
Sent: 22 January 2018 20:29
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] NARs for princesses

 

That 667 field was added to any authority record with a subfield $c in the 100. It doesn't necessarily mean that the heading is not a valid RDA heading.

 

The examples in 9.4 are used as additions to the preferred name. See 9.19.1.2.1.  The heading for the princess is probably OK as it is.

 

------------------------------------------

John Hostage

Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger

Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services

Langdell Hall 194

Harvard Law School Library

Cambridge, MA 02138

+(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 Jessica Janecki <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 14:26
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] NARs for princesses

 

I turn to the collective wisdom for help with a NAR for a Duchess of York, Frederica Charlotte of Prussia. I find the RDA rules for royals (see 9.4 and 9.2.2.14) to be extremely hard to parse. She’s a royal both by birth and by marriage (daughter of a king and wife of a king’s son). She also doesn’t have a last name in any real sense and the examples in 9.2.2.14 all involve people with last names. The examples at 9.4 only show the title and don’t show the whole preferred name.

 

There is currently a NAR in the NAF, but it has a 667 THIS 1XX FIELD CANNOT BE USED UNDER RDA UNTIL THIS RECORD HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND/OR UPDATED and I want to do the right thing and clean up the record while I am looking at it.

 

Current heading:

Frederica Charlotte Ulrica Catherina, ǂc Princess, Duchess of York, ǂd 1767-1820

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Frederica_Charlotte_of_Prussia

 

Thanks in advance,

Jessica

 

 


 
******************************************************************************************************************
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