I would add thatField of Activity was a candidate element for AAPs in RDA’s greener days, but no longer is—that is, if “(Educator)” is intended to be a Field of Activity term. There’s no 372 field in the Bradley record to confirm. Touching the 100 field would seem to be justified if following bullet point #5 in Robert’s list below.
Mark K. Ehlert O'Shaughnessy-Frey Library
Cataloging and Metadata University of St. Thomas
Librarian 2115 Summit Avenue
- Alma: NA02 // Primo: MT NA01
"Experience is by industry achieved // And perfected by
the swift course of time"--Shakespeare, "Two Gentlemen of
Verona," Act I, Scene iii
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]
GOV]On Behalf Of Robert Bratton
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 12:35 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Unnecessary changes
I believe what John Hostage was originally getting at is: should this AAP have been changed?
I think the answer is: No, unless you think the qualifier used was incorrect or misleading, because the string is in valid RDA form. The LC/PCC practice is to "generally" not change valid RDA AAPs.
The RDA 126.96.36.199 PS:
LC practice/PCC practice: Generally, do not change the authorized access point in an existing authority record coded "rda" that is fully established unless one or more of these conditions applies:
1. a date of death is added to an authorized access point that has an open date of birth, or a date of birth is added to an authorized access point that has only a date of death
2. the authorized access point must be changed to break a conflict with another authorized access point
3. an error in the authorized access point must be corrected (e.g., "1979-" instead of "1970-")
4. a person has requested a change to their authorized access point that can be accommodated by current cataloging instructions
5. there has been a change in cataloging instructions affecting the authorized access point.
On rare occasions, a person requests that the formulation of their authorized access point be changed (e.g., to remove a date of birth or a fuller form of name). LC and PCC should attempt to honor such requests by changing the appropriate fields in the record, and indicate in a note that the person's preference has been followed.
If someone thought the qualifier was misleading, they should have included the former AAP as an 4xx cross reference with $w nne when they created a new AAP (with correct punctuation).
Jacob Burns Law Library
George Washington University