Print

Print


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) 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]> 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]]
> On Behalf Of Diana Slaughter
> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 9:16 AM
> To: [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