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-


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" ( 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.


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]GOV] 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 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