Print

Print


Sorry - 1648. I am getting my centuries mixed up.

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 11:21 AM, Gene Fieg <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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] <[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]] *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
>>
>


-- 
*Ann Heinrichs*
Metadata/Cataloging Librarian | The Paul Bechtold Library
Catholic Theological Union
5401 S. Cornell Ave. | Chicago, IL 60615 | ctu.edu