While I am uncertain as to my level of wisdom, I would agree with those who have said that it should be a date of activity. If there is a probable date of death, I would use that (for example, -1186?) but from what I have seen from others, there seems to be no real consensus on any date. RDA (9.3.3) also allows for recording an approximate date of death, which in this case could be (-approximately 1186).

 

In any case, the current establishment is wrong. I think an argument could be made for changing it to:

100 1# ʻAntarī, Muḥammad ibn al-Mujallī, $d -approximately 1186

 

But I think that the period of activity would be the best option.

 

 

Preston Salisbury

Assistant Professor and Monographic Cataloger

Mississippi State University

(662) 325-4618

[log in to unmask]

 

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L Schiff
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 6:22 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] valid form of date??

 

Collective PCC wisdom,

 

We need to submit a classification number proposal for a person who is established as:

 

100 1# ʻAntarī, Muḥammad ibn al-Mujallī, $d -after 1186 or 1187

 

I don’t think that I have ever seen a date of birth or death with the word “after” (or “before”), and looking at RDA 9.3.1, I do not see that as an option.

 

Should this access point be left as it is, or should it be changed to omit any date at all since there isn’t a conflict, or changed to a period of activity (active 12th century)?

 

Adam Schiff

 

Adam L. Schiff

Principal Cataloger

University of Washington Libraries

Cataloging & Metadata Services

Box 352900

Seattle, WA 98195-2900

[log in to unmask]