This is very interesting.

Netanel, you and I were in the same NACO training in 2016 and I don't remember Paul Frank saying adding these dates was required - just good to have.

I remember the the ongoing discussion that we need not create conflict over disambiguation where no conflict exists.
    - which of course goes along with RDA very well.
    - I can tell you that i DO e-mail authors to ask birth dates - but only when I need to distinguish.

What do you think?
Have I misunderstood this?

thank you

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 4:58 PM, Netanel Ganin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hi Jesse, 

My understanding is as follows:

The PS says it is an optional addition because it is optional for RDA itself. RDA is used by many communities outside of LC and the PCC and each can come up with their own rulings for the various options.

But if you're contributing to the Name Authority File via the PCC of which NACO is a part -- then the LC/PCC practice at at is indeed required and you must add a birth and/or death date [if known] to a new AAP even if not needed to distinguish between access points.

Adding dates in the 046 is useful for machine processing but does not override the requirement to record them [if known] in the AAP.

Regarding emailing creator/contributors -- I certainly don't email them all. Sometimes I can readily ascertain dates from various online/print sources, but if it is not known, then I do not record it. Once in a while though when a person has a very common name and their contact info is readily available, yes I'll e-mail them.


Netanel Ganin


Any opinions in this email are solely those of Netanel Ganin and not to be construed or represented as those of any institution.

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 4:40 PM, Jesse Lambertson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Happy friday everyone

I have a question about birth dates.
I just had a discussion with someone who suggested that new AAPs were required to have a birth day (year) in the 100 $a Surname, name, $d 2018-

For the creation of AAPs..

RDA states: Include a date of birth (see 9.3.2) and/or a date of death (see 9.3.3) if needed to distinguish one authorized access point from another. Record the year alone.

LC-PCC PS for presents an optional addition:

LC practice/PCC practice for Optional addition: Add a date of birth and/or date of death to new authority records, even if not needed to distinguish between access points.
I was taught by my trainer not to add qualifying information to AAPs unless needed - but that it is generally good practice to add 046s if that information is available.

This practice of adding birth dates to AAPs is optional, correct?
If it is not, why does the PS say it is for optional addition?

Also, If I did add a date to 046 $f ____-__-__ $2 edtf, am I also required to add that date to the heading? If so, where does it say it is required?

Are the NACO contributors out there e-mailing to acquire birth date for EVERY new access point being produced?

This seems excessive to me.

What do people think?

Thank you much

Jesse A Lambertson
Head of Cataloging & Metadata
Georgetown University Law Library

Jesse A Lambertson
Head of Cataloging & Metadata
Georgetown University Law Library
[log in to unmask]
Ph: 202-662-9167