Quoting from a November 20, 2017 note from Dave Reser to the PCC list:So I don't thing using the date anyway is a good solution. If the person is making the request, the date information should be thoroughly removed from the LCNAF record.
As indicated in LC-PCC PS for 184.108.40.206:
“On rare occasions, a person requests that the formulation of their authorized access point be changed (e.g., to remove a date of birth or a fuller form of name). LC and PCC should attempt to honor such requests by changing the appropriate fields in the record, and indicate in a note that the person's preference has been followed.”
The mention of “appropriate fields” is intentional, as removing the date (etc.) from a heading alone does not usually satisfy the request. I recommend a 667 note to document this as well, in hopes of catching a cataloger’s eye.Note that RDA 220.127.116.11 is not pretty wide open in terms of what parenthetical qualifiers can be added to an authorized name access point to differentiate it. If you add "... $c (Ph. D.)", I think that would not require that the added term be from usage as 18.104.22.168 would for "..., $c Ph. D." Or (.... $c (Author of [title]), or some other expedient. But not the date.StephenOn Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 12:50 PM Young,William C <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I have been known to tell our faculty “Sorry, the rules don’t really give me that option, what I need is _____”.
If pressed I can cite the rules, but frankly, no one has ever pushed me on it very hard.
William C. (Hank) Young
George A. Smathers Libraries
University of Florida
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 22.214.171.124, 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 126.96.36.199) 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 188.8.131.52).
“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
--Stephen Hearn, Metadata StrategistData Management & Access, University LibrariesUniversity of Minnesota170A Wilson Library (office)160 Wilson Library (mail)309 19th Avenue SouthMinneapolis, MN 55455Ph: 612-625-2328Fx: 612-625-3428ORCID: 0000-0002-3590-1242