1948 ???Gene Fieg
On Tuesday, August 28, 2018, Ann Heinrichs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:Kate! Well said.Upon 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?-11-21100 $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?AnnOn 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 188.8.131.52 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 184.108.40.206 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.
Policy and Standards Division
Library of Congress
RDA doesn’t give you an option to use a slash. See 220.127.116.11 (and 18.104.22.168 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-
University of Washington Libraries
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.
Head, Original & Special Collections Cataloging
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]
Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
Langdell Hall 194
Harvard Law School Library
Cambridge, MA 02138
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917
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?