Print

Print


1948 ???

Gene Fieg

On Tuesday, August 28, 2018, Ann Heinrichs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Kate! Well said.
>
> U
> pon further research, I am encountering more ambiguity about the birth
> date, as well as a slight feeling that one of the death dates comes from
> the more reliable source. Perhaps I should just take the "active" route,
> like this:
>
> 046 $s 1629-10-19 $t 1648?-11-21
> 100 $d active 1629-1648?
>
> . . . because this missionary priest was ordained on Oct. 19, 1629 and
> died in "the Congo" on Nov. 21 in *maybe* 1948.
>
>
> Speaking of 370 $b (Place of Death) ... We have discussed this on this
> list before, so I just want to confirm. The town in which he died was
> located *at the time* in the "Kingdom of Kongo" (USE Congo (Democratic
> Republic)), so my 370 $b will be Congo (Democratic Republic). However,
> today that town is located in Angola, so I mean to include 370 $f Angola.
>
>
> Does all or any of this seem OK?
>
> Ann
>
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 5:33 PM, Policy and Standards Division <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> In general, you can record multiple values for an RDA element.  For
>> example, the NAR for the scientist Marie Curie has “Physicists” and
>> “Chemists” recorded for the RDA element profession or occupation.
>> Naturally, a person might have multiple professions over a lifetime so this
>> is logical.
>>
>>
>>
>> For date of death though, RDA instructions work on the assumption that a
>> person only dies once and it defines date of death as “a year a person
>> died.”  This is more clear when you read 9.3.3.3 and it says to record a
>> date of death of a “deceased person.” Note that RDA does not define the
>> element as “the year a resource says a person died.”
>>
>>
>>
>> In this definition, it may ignore the wonders of modern medicine in favor
>> of a common sense approach to the idea of “date of death.”  Thus, if I go
>> into cardiac arrest immediately after sending this email but am revived, it
>> would not be appropriate to record “2018” or any fuller variation on that
>> as my date of death because it gives the end user the idea that I am no
>> longer alive and capable of creating works and will become confusing when I
>> finally meet my “true death” in what I hope will be a year with a value
>> closer to “2058” or higher.  I think my revival would preclude describing
>> me as a “deceased person,” but I’m sure philosophers could debate this
>> point.  This is a rather absurd scenario but it illustrates a way that it
>> it is possible provide multiple values for the same RDA element based on a
>> definition of death as “the heart stops beating.”
>>
>>
>>
>> In contrast, when you record a date of death as “1742 or 1743” according
>> to RDA 9.3.1.3 you are actually recording ONE value for the RDA element
>> date of death.  To include multiple 046 fields, each with its own $g that
>> contains a different value turns a MARC field subfield combo that maps well
>> to RDA into somewhat of a mapping problem.  Although the 046 field is
>> repeatable, $g is not repeatable within a single field, which also suggest
>> it is not desirable to separately subfield code each year when recording
>> the MARC equivalent of “1742 or 1743.”
>>
>>
>>
>> It is also problematic to record multiple dates of death in  the edtf
>> format when the intention is that it be one of two years.  In edtf,
>>  “[1742, 1743]” means “either 1742 or 1743.”  To convey this uncertainty in
>> a repeated field you have to make both dates uncertain and nuance is lost:
>>
>>
>>
>> 046 $g 1742? $2 edtf
>>
>> 046 $g 1743? $2 edtf
>>
>>
>>
>> If you record both years without the “?” in repeated 046 fields in a NAR
>> you are saying according to edtf format and RDA: “It is certain that this
>> person died in 1742” and “It is certain that this person died in 1742.”  As
>> I have explained above, I do not believe the RDA instructions for date of
>> death include the possibility of dying twice.  Thus, I strongly recommend
>> against recording two 046 fields simply to express a different source of
>> information in a $v.  Obviously, you should include a 670 for each year if
>> you record both in brackets.  A human being should be able to make the
>> connection between two sources that give two different years and a date of
>> death value that says “X or Y.”
>>
>>
>>
>> Please note that the technique of “X or Y” is used when it is certain
>> that the death occurred in either of the two years.  It is most commonly
>> used when you have a date in non-Gregorian calendar like the Hebrew
>> calendar, but that is not the only time. If multiple sources are divided
>> between two different years and the sources seem to be using the same
>> calendar, this technique may also be appropriate. If multiple sources seem
>> to give a variety of dates and/or some express the date with uncertainly,
>> the it is best to use an approximate date of death.  If a few sources give
>> one year, but multiple other sources give the same different year, then it
>> might be best to ignore the one source as it probably wrong.  The NAR for
>> Fidel Castro is a good example of when we decided to record his date of
>> birth as “1926” rather than “1926 or 1927” when sources differed about what
>> year he was born.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Kate
>>
>>
>>
>> Kate James
>>
>> Policy and Standards Division
>>
>> Library of Congress
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> *On
>> Behalf Of *Adam L. Schiff
>> *Sent:* Monday, August 27, 2018 4:40 PM
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] An edtf question
>>
>>
>>
>> RDA doesn’t give you an option to use a slash.  See 9.3.1.3 (and 9.19.1.3
>> which refers you back to there) for how birth and death dates are to be
>> recorded in access points.  There you will find:
>>
>>
>>
>> If the year is uncertain but known to be either one of two years, record
>> the date in the form [year] or [year].
>>
>>
>>
>> The examples in RDA only show two consecutive years, but the instruction
>> itself does not limit to that situation, so I think you would use: $d 1598
>> or 1600-
>>
>>
>>
>> Adam Schiff
>>
>> University of Washington Libraries
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> OV <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *Ann Heinrichs
>> *Sent:* Monday, August 27, 2018 12:38 PM
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* Re: An edtf question
>>
>>
>>
>> Am not sure which way to go on this one, but regardless, . . .
>>
>>
>>
>> What, then, goes in field 100 $d? The two dates with a slash between them
>> (meaning "or")?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Kathy Glennan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> My personal preference is to record two separate 046 fields to represent
>> each possibility, with $v for the source in each. This solution makes it
>> clearer about what you have found. After all, it's not one source stating
>> that there are two possibilities, instead you have two different sources
>> with varying information.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kathy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Kathy Glennan
>>
>> Head, Original & Special Collections Cataloging
>>
>> NACO Coordinator
>>
>> University of Maryland Libraries
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 3:25 PM, Hostage, John <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> It’s one of a set:
>>
>> 046 $f [1598,1600]
>>
>>
>>
>> Sec. 5.3.3 in https://www.loc.gov/standards/datetime/pre-submission.html
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------
>>
>> 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]
>>
>> +(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]
>> OV] *On Behalf Of *Ann Heinrichs
>> *Sent:* Monday, August 27, 2018 15:20
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* [PCCLIST] An edtf question
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello, wise ones -
>>
>>
>>
>> I've been clawing my through the LC's edtf instructions and becoming
>> cross-eyed and cross-brained. I'm making a NAR for a person whose birth
>> year, according to one source, is 1598, and according to another source is
>> 1600. How do I indicate this either/or situation in my 046 field?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>> Ann
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> *Ann Heinrichs*
>>
>> Metadata/Cataloging Librarian | The Paul Bechtold Library
>>
>> Catholic Theological Union
>>
>> 5401 S. Cornell Ave. | Chicago, IL 60615
>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=5401+S.+Cornell+Ave.+%7C+Chicago,+IL+60615&entry=gmail&source=g>
>> | ctu.edu
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ctu.edu_&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=O9-UIVab7e9YxpBphmOmeEQruoCpRWXNPKDBg9tfb88&m=rOT-eBpXrnjgAE26H7b6w0BLOrYx6D_DijYqfhvwYsI&s=nsiVDfJ-fLu89C1lTkZf-Lf7uqGrJkaQvDGYkJOS5uk&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> *Ann Heinrichs*
>>
>> Metadata/Cataloging Librarian | The Paul Bechtold Library
>>
>> Catholic Theological Union
>>
>> 5401 S. Cornell Ave. | Chicago, IL 60615
>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=5401+S.+Cornell+Ave.+%7C+Chicago,+IL+60615&entry=gmail&source=g>
>> | ctu.edu
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Ann Heinrichs*
> Metadata/Cataloging Librarian | The Paul Bechtold Library
> Catholic Theological Union
> 5401 S. Cornell Ave. | Chicago, IL 60615 | ctu.edu
>