The 667 note displays publicly at the LoC linked data site. Check out the following example:
I will say that I think not mentioning the date in the 667 note is going too far. It’s not a public note. Are we saying that if we put it in a note, catalogers won’t be able to resist putting it in the AAP even if the note tells them not to? I think that’s silly.
Thank you all for your valuable input. I will be creating an authority record for the author using Ph. D. as the qualifier. I do this for several reasons based on your collective input:
1. Thanks for pointing out LC-PCC PS for 220.127.116.11. Although I am not changing an established authority record, the author has already indicated his preferences in the access point for his name and, as many pointed out, his preference should be honored.
2. Adding a note in the authority record indicating the author’s preference, without referencing his date of birth, will alert future catalogers. Thanks to Mike for the example.
3. I can’t add an occupation since I have no idea what he does. He works at a lab on campus, but that’s about all I can tell. Plus he has specifically said that he is not comfortable using a profession as a qualifier. The three publications he has written are in very different fields, so trying to create a qualifier based on what he writes about would be difficult. I will cite the thesis and dissertation in notes in the authority record.
4. In addition to the email correspondence that Bob references below, the author has consistently used PhD after his name in his correspondence with me. FWIW, he has a web page that gives his education background, although he doesn’t use the PhD designation, just “Doctorate of Philosophy.”
If others with his same name and academic degree appear in the future, then other catalogers will just need to figure out how to break the conflict. J
Just to point out, 18.104.22.168 is fairly vague. The guideline says “if the term appears with the name” and does not say “if the term appears with the name in a published source.” The term has in fact appeared with the name, now, in the e-mail correspondence.
Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
The fact that RDA says specifically “Include a term … if the term appears with the name and if …” is a problem. I think this means Ph.D. has to have been used with the name, on top of the other requirements. Since the author has never used Ph.D. as part of his name in published works, I’m not sure it can legitimately be used here. I would suggest using an Other Designation.
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
On Behalf Of Netanel Ganin
Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 2:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Adding Ph.D. to authority record for an author
I agree with Rich. I interpret the Exception at 22.214.171.124 broadly: "Exception If a person’s preference is known to be different from normal usage, follow that preference when choosing the part of the name to be recorded as the first element."
That is, a person's preference for their own name's appearance supersedes what the rules dictate up to the point where it would create actual bibliographic havoc in the database. Adding a 667 note for future catalogers could also mitigate someone who had not communicated with the author from flipping the heading thinking they'd found the date.
Any opinions in this email are solely those of Netanel Ganin and not to be construed or represented as those of any institution.
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:55 PM Richard Murray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I think the fact that the author has said he doesn’t want his date of birth to appear in his heading makes it effectively “not available.”
I would probably go ahead and use “Ph. D.,” citing the author’s preference, but you could also use something like “Writer on astronomy” (or whatever) or “Of Oregon State University.”
Catalog Librarian for Spanish and Portuguese Languages | Rare Books | Sequential Art
Duke University Libraries
Durham, North Carolina, USA
An author of a dissertation at our institution contacted me to ask that we remove his year of birth from the access point for his name on the dissertation’s (and thesis’s) bib records. If we do that, his name conflicts with another in WorldCat. I do have his middle initial, but when asked if we could use his middle name to distinguish his name, he gave a long answer why he didn’t want his middle name used. I asked if he could provide his profession and he refused to give one. He is in the military and with reference to the above possible additions to his name, he cites his being in the military. He is okay about us using “Ph. D.” as an addition to his name.
I could just go ahead and do that, but I looked at RDA and the relevant LC Policy Statements. RDA 126.96.36.199, Other Term of Rank, Honour, or Office, specifically states:
Include a term indicative of rank, honour, or office if the term appears with the name (see 188.8.131.52) and if needed to distinguish one authorized access point from another. Include this element when the person's date of birth or date of death is not available (see 184.108.40.206).
“Ph. D.” is given as an example of such a term. Of the 3 conditions specified in the rule, only the need to distinguish from another authorized access point is me. None of his 3 publications (thesis, dissertation, and a journal article) use Ph. D. after his name, although it is obvious from the dissertation that he has the degree. His birth date is available, so the 3rd condition in the rule is not met – that is how this situation began.
Is this the point where cataloger’s judgment kicks in? Should I not be a stickler for rules and just drop his birth date and add the Ph. D.? I intend to create an authority record in addition to changing the access points on the bib records.
Thanks for your input.
Richard E. Sapon-White, Head
Cataloging and Metadata Services
Oregon State University Libraries
121 Valley Library
Corvallis, OR 97331-4501