 |
 |
Bob, For some reason, RDA doesn’t divide personal name parts into first name, middle name, and last name. It only divides them into given name and surname, and then it clumsily tries to deal with other name parts like patronymics and familiar relationship terms in various places in chapter 9 and Appendix F. So the reason the fuller form of name for Nancy E. is “Nancy Elizabeth” is because “Nancy Elizabeth” is the fuller form of the given name “Nancy E.” So to ask what is the fuller form of “G.H. von” is the wrong question to ask because “G.H. von” isn’t form of given name. “Von” operates as part of a surname, but it’s recorded in a different position than “Wright” because that is the practice for names of that culture. There are huge problems with trying to formulate instructions for personal names of every culture. This is why we have so many additional instructions in Appendix F. The personal name instructions in chapter 9 assume a level of familiarity with the culture the name comes from and then Appendix F helps if you don’t have that familiarity. For example, “Elín Hirst” does not represent a given name and surname combination even though it looks like that to many English speakers. Appendix F calls “Hirst” a “family name” which might be confusing rather than clarifying because people might get the idea that somehow a “family name” is different than a “surname.” It is not as surname is defined in the glossary as a name that is used as a family name. The important issue with Icelandic names is that “surname” is not a concept applicable to their culture. So my given name and family name get recorded as “James, Kate” because that’s the custom for my culture, “Elín Hirst” stays in direct order. I think it would be easier to understand and record if the element fuller form of name was deprecated in RDA. Instead, you could record a variant name in an authorized access point like this: Smith, Nancy E. (Nancy Elizabeth Smith). This is an even broader concept than what you were proposing because it could also allow something like “Boy George, (George Alan O'Dowd), 1961-“ and less useful forms like “Reagan, Ronald (Rūnāld Rayjān)” This a good example of where a registry of elements is easy but an agency’s implementation of them is can be extremely complicated because you need about 20 policy statements to say what variant names should be record after preferred names in authorized access points and what variants should not be recorded. The other giant elephant in the room is legacy data. I can’t imagine a programmatic solution that would turn “Smith, Nancy E. (Nancy Elizabeth)” into “Smith, Nancy E. (Nancy Elizabeth Smith)” while leaving untouched “Rodríguez V., Manuel G. (Manuel Guillermo Rodríguez Valbuena)”. If we were relying on identifiers or IRIs instead of access points to identify persons, this wouldn’t be such an issue. Kate Kate James Policy and Standards Division Library of Congress Kate From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 6:13 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Separable prefixes in fuller form qualifiers for given names While I agree with Kate’s conclusion, I don’t think it is as obvious as implied that “George Henrik” and not “George Henrik von” is the fuller form of “G.H. von”. I think your argument, Kate, is that only the fuller form of “G.H.” counts, excluding the “von” because only “G.H.” are represented by an initial or abbreviation given the 9.5 definition? In that case what about “Nancy Elizabeth” as the fuller form of “Nancy E.” in the example (among others)? Following the above reasoning, only “Elizabeth” would be recorded as a fuller form because “Nancy” is not “represented only by an initial [etc.]”. I am more persuaded by the argument that we don’t know if “von” is really a part of the surname or the given names, given the way we invert the name, which is dependent on nationality or author’s preference. However, that argument doesn’t follow from anything that I can see in the definition at 9.5. But why does that matter? Although I understand the practice, I’ve always been puzzled by our custom of recording either fuller form(s) of forenames, or fuller form(s) of surnames, or fuller form(s) of the full name. RDA, with its “then” clause, makes the practice clearer than AACR2 did, but it still retains that pesky “and/or”, never explaining when to do the “and” and when to do the “or.” It’s only by looking carefully at the examples that the cataloger (who doesn’t already know) can figure out when to record everything (specifically looking at the “Manuel Guillermo Rodríguez Valbuena -- Preferred name recorded as: Rodríguez V., Manuel G.” example). One of the basic principles is that the examples are supposed to illustrate, but the guideline itself is supposed to tell the cataloger what to do, that is, “catalog from the rules, not from the examples.” You shouldn’t have to backtrack from the examples to figure out what to do. But I remain skeptical of the practice itself. Why do we have all these rules and customs to record this bit of the fuller forms (e.g. just the forenames) but not that bit of them (e.g. don’t include the surname)? Why not simply, for this element, record the fuller form of the entire name, and leave to the instructions for access points the detail about only adding a parenthetical qualifier for the fuller form of the forenames, or of the surnames, or of both, and explaining there what to include and leave out? Indeed, I think this might be unavoidable if the RSC follows through on what we heard at the ALA preconference, and defines preferred name as the commonly known form as found, i.e., not an artificially inverted form (and the same for variant names), correctly and logically moving the instructions for inversion to the instructions for the authorized access point (a change which I enthusiastically support). When this happens the examples in current 9.5.1.3 (wherever they wind up in the new unnumbered RDA) won’t make very much sense, because, presumably, they’ll appear as follows: Nancy Elizabeth Preferred name recorded as: Nancy E. Smith Nancy Ellen Preferred name recorded as: Nancy E. Smith John Dudley Preferred name recorded as: John Williams Philip John Preferred name recorded as: John Williams Frances Elizabeth Preferred name recorded as: Mrs. King Manuel Guillermo Rodríguez Valbuena Preferred name recorded as: Manuel G. Rodríguez V. Now add in the G.H. von Wright example: George Henrik [or perhaps George Henrik von?] Preferred name recorded as: G. H. von Wright Once the artificial inversions are taken out of the preferred name definition and recording practice, there will no longer be any indication in the future equivalent of 9.5 (except perhaps the capitalization) that the surname begins with “Wright” and not “von” even though perhaps von “is still part of the surname intellectually but it’s not recorded in the surname position because that doesn’t reflect the cultural practice”. The easiest way out of this mess, as I suggest above, is in the fuller form element (i.e., I’m not talking about the access point instructions) the element simply be defined as the fullest known form of the entire name: Nancy Elizabeth Smith Preferred name recorded as: Nancy E. Smith Nancy Ellen Smith Preferred name recorded as: Nancy E. Smith John Dudley Williams Preferred name recorded as: John Williams Philip John Williams Preferred name recorded as: John Williams Frances Elizabeth King [or perhaps Mrs. Francis Elizabeth King] Preferred name recorded as: Mrs. King Manuel Guillermo Rodríguez Valbuena Preferred name recorded as: Manuel G. Rodríguez V. George Henrik von Wright Preferred name recorded as: G. H. von Wright Leave to the authorized access point instructions the dizzying gyrations of what to include in the parenthetical qualifier and what not to. Or make the dizzying gyrations obsolete and just say to record the fuller form in its entirety in the qualifier. There’s no logical reason not to do away with these complicated rules for what to decide to put in the qualifier, it’s just our custom. In either case, the instruction about what to put in the qualifier belongs in the access point instructions, not the fuller form of name element instructions. I point out that in our current PCC practice we are in fact recording the fullest known form as the RDA element (378 field), which does not always translate to what goes into the qualifier anyway, if the cataloger chooses to include a qualifier in the authorized access point. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of Policy and Standards Division Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 3:00 PM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Separable prefixes in fuller form qualifiers for given names The definition of “fuller form of name” provides more clarity than the recording instructions. The definition is “A name or names associated with a person that includes the fuller form of a part of any name represented only by an initial, abbreviation, or shortened or otherwise modified variant in the form chosen as the preferred name and/or a part of the name not included in the form chosen as the preferred name.” The relevant part of the definition in this situation is “the fuller form of a part of any name represented only by an initial, abbreviation” This means that “George Henrik” is the fuller form of the part of the name “G.H.” when the whole preferred name is recorded as “Wright, G. H. von” So the value for the element fuller form of name is “George Henrik.” Now I go to 9.19.1.5 and it tells me to add the fuller form before a date of birth and/or death. I also apply this instruction from E.1.2.2: “Enclose a fuller form of name in parentheses.” So this is what I get when recording the authorized access point in MARC format: 100 1# $a Wright, G. H. von $q (George Henrik), $d 1916- If the definition for “fuller form of name” doesn’t include the prefix “von” in this situation, then I can’t include it as part of the value of the element when I record it. If I didn’t include it as part of the value of the element, I can’t do within the authorized access point. I do understand how 9.5.1.3 a) gives the impression that “von” could be recorded as part of the fuller form of name in this case, but when you consider that instruction in conjunction with the element definition, I think it is pretty clear what to do. The instructions on fuller form of name were confusing in AACR2 and they aren’t so clear in RDA either. In 2015 the definition of “fuller form of name” was revised (see 6JSC/CCC/17/rev/Sec final) but the recording instructions were not. I think another issue in play here is that prefixes in names are very murky. Sometimes they are clearly part of a forename, sometimes they are clearly part of a surname, and sometimes they seem to be in their own space like the example above. It’s easy for me to say that in the example, “Van Buren, Martin” the surname is “Van Buren” but for “Wright, G. H. van” the best way I can describe it is that it is still part of the surname intellectually but it’s not recorded in the surname position because that doesn’t reflect the cultural practice. Please note that there are situations in which it would be appropriate to record a prefix as part of a fuller form of name. For example, here’s the preferred form of name: Aguilar Gómez, Javier de J. Here’s the fuller form of name: Javier de Jesús. Here’s what would happen if the fuller form of name was in the authorized access point: Aguilar Gómez, Javier de J. (Javier de Jesús). Kate Kate James Policy and Standards Division Library of Congress From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of Hostage, John Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 4:29 PM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Separable prefixes in fuller form qualifiers for given names I don’t see any reason to change an understanding and practice that has worked well for many years. However, I would be stricter about applying LC-PCC PS for 9.19.1.4 and adding the fuller form only “if the cataloger considers it important for identification.” ------------------------------------------ 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 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 15:45 To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Separable prefixes in fuller form qualifiers for given names Does this mean that 100s which omit a particle or prefix from a $q fuller form should be considered not in compliance with RDA and revised? For example, revising 100 1# $a Wright, G. H. von $q (George Henrik), $d 1916- to 100 1# $a Wright, G. H. von $q (George Henrik von), $d 1916- In the absence of a more specific instruction from RDA to include such particles and prefixes in the fuller form, I'd say no. The RDA registry definition of "has fuller form of name" (http://www.rdaregistry.info/Elements/a/#P50115<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rdaregistry.info_Elements_a_-23P50115&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=O9-UIVab7e9YxpBphmOmeEQruoCpRWXNPKDBg9tfb88&m=mLAJvELKlEM_WvQQuOs6vBS7oLQRXd2e-DydYE5P_es&s=fJlkPgBQssK_AqH07wQ3aSWNfkqxX5SFm79E9XbgiUc&e=>) refers to expanding parts of the name present in the preferred form and/or adding parts not present, but says nothing about what parts that are present in a preferred form must be included in the fuller form. Stephen On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Adam L. Schiff <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: I also checked the DCM Z1 to see if there was something there. Nothing about this in the 378 guidelines and in the 100 guidelines it does refer catalogers to LC-PCC PS for 1.7.1 section Access point s for persons in name authority and bibliographic records, but not in the context of what to include in the $q. Nothing in the NACO Participants' Manual either (which hasn't been updated for RDA). So it looks like LCRI 22.18A didn't get carried over into the LC-PCC PSs, but I don't know if that means there was an intentional decision to change the way fuller forms are recorded, to allow catalogers to use their judgment about it, or not. LCRI 22.18A When adding the full form, observe the following guidelines: 1) If the initial occurs in the forename portion of the surname-forename heading, give in the parenthetical addition not only the full form but also the other forenames that appear in the forename portion of the heading. However, do not include a particle or prefix that appears in the forename portion. Place the parenthetical addition directly after the forename portion and before any other addition (e.g., date, title). 100 1# $a Wright, G. H. von $q (George Henrik), $d 1916- 100 1# $a Beruete y Moret, A. de $q (Aureliano), $d 1876-1922 It would be nice to have a uniformly understood practice, but maybe it doesn't matter much either. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries -----Original Message----- From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Diana Slaughter Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 9:16 AM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Separable prefixes in fuller form qualifiers for given names I would like to know how others are handling fuller form qualifiers for given names when the names contain "separable prefixes" (e.g., de, van). I'm finding conflicting information and examples. At present, I'm handling a lot of Dutch titles, so I'm encountering names with initials and prefixes frequently. The examples in Maxwell's Handbook for RDA, 2013, p. 273 suggest that omitting prefixes from qualifiers is the way to go. Excerpt: 5. Fuller forms of names with separable prefix: 100 1 Freitas, J. Garcia de (José Garcia) 100 1 Aalderen, H. J. van (Herman Jan) RDA 9.5.1.3 says " ... record, as appropriate: a) the fuller form of all the inverted part of the name (given names, etc.)." I don't see any examples in RDA comparable to those in Maxwell. Is this saying to include everything to the right of the comma of what would be coded Marc subfield a? If the prefixes are to be included in the qualifier, presumably one would do this: 100 1 Aalderen, H. J. van (Herman Jan van) 400 1 Van Aalderen, H. J. (Herman Jan) Not surprisingly, example in NAF are mixed. Thank you. Diana Slaughter Law Library The University of Michigan -- 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