Thanks, Richard. Combining 11.13.2 and PS 11.13.1.2 does certainly appear to suggest that acronyms in 4xx should be qualified, whether or not it’s needed to distinguish them.

Pete

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 1:53 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Qualifying a 1xx or a 4xx?

Pete

LC-PCC-PS for 11.13.1.2 mentions authorized access points, however, RDA 11.3.2 says to “Apply the instructions at 11.13.1.2–11.13.1.8” to variant access points.

Note also the example at PS 11.13.1.2:

110 2# $a CAST (Group)

410 2# $a C.A.S.T. (Group)

I’ve now found an email correspondence from 2012 (!) in which we (the BL) asked for the qualifier to be added to the 410 in the above example, to make this very point. It’s best practice to qualify acronyms in 410s as well as 110s.

How we will be able have conversations like this with reference to the 3R Toolkit, with no instruction numbers to refer to, is another question entirely.

Regards

Richard

________________________

Richard Moore

Authority Control Team Manager

The British Library

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546104

E-mail: [log in to unmask]

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Wilson, Pete
Sent: 25 April 2019 19:14
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Qualifying a 1xx or a 4xx?

Hi Kate,

I have a vague memory that if an acronym used as a variant name conflicts with a variant on another authority record, it should be qualified.

But that would constitute an exception to “Ignore the conflict that is only between names used as variants” in PS 11.13.1.1. And no such thing is said under “Initialisms and acronyms” in PS 11.13.1.2.

Certainly a variant like

AMC (American Music Club)

can be found more quickly in a results list than the particular AMC you want.

Is this just a matter of judgment, or is there an RDA rule or PS that I am missing?

Thanks,

Pete Wilson

Vanderbilt University

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Policy and Standards Division
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2019 1:43 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Qualifying a 1xx or a 4xx?

Consulting the LC-PCC PSs increases the percentage of certainty to 100%. There are instructions about this in the LC-PCC PSs that tell you to break the conflict on the variant access point when there is conflict between an authorized and a variant access point for different entities.

LC-PCC PS for 9.19.2.1: LC practice/PCC practice: In addition to the reason given in the instruction, also make additions to a variant access point when needed to break a conflict with an authorized access point in another record, or with another variant access point in the same record.

LC-PCC PS for 11.13.1.1: LC practice/PCC practice: When two or more bodies have the same name, make an addition to each name. Determine that a conflict exists when the preferred name or authorized access point for one body is the same as the preferred name or authorized access point for another body. "Conflict" is restricted to names already created or being created in the catalog. If a variant name conflicts with a form used in the authorized access point for another body, apply the provisions for resolving conflicts only to the variant name. Ignore the conflict that is only between names used as variants.

LC-PCC PS for 6.27.4: Add a qualifier if the variant access point conflicts with the authorized access point of another resource (RDA 6.27.1.9[log in to unmask]" alt="http://access.rdatoolkit.org/images/rdalink.png">).

Kate James

Policy and Standards Division

Library of Congress

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2019 12:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Qualifying a 1xx or a 4xx?

Thanks everyone for the responses.

--Ben

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Adam L Schiff
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2019 12:44 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Qualifying a 1xx or a 4xx?

Because unqualified access points that are already in the database for the person being established would not need to be changed. But if that unqualified access point has been used for more than one person, then the new name does probably need to be qualified and access points in OCLC changed.

Adam Schiff

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Gene Fieg <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2019 9:12 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Qualifying a 1xx or a 4xx?

How so? I would think that the new 1XX would require the qualifiier.

Gene Fieg

On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 8:47 AM Adam L Schiff <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Since breaking the conflict on the 4XX requires less BFM, I believe that is preferable.

Adam

Adam Schiff

Principal Cataloger

University of Washington Libraries

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Benjamin A Abrahamse <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2019 8:12:52 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Qualifying a 1xx or a 4xx?

When we are establishing a new NAR and discover that our 1xx conflicts with a 4xx on another record, is it better to add a qualifier to the 1xx on the new NAR, or to add retrospectively a qualifier to the old 4xx? I have a sense that the latter is the preferable solution but I’m not 100 percent certain.

--Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse

Cataloging Coordinator

Acquisitions & Discovery Enhancement

MIT Libraries

******************************************************************************************************************

Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk

The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html

Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabook

The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled

*****************************************************************************************************************

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the [log in to unmask] : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.

The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.

*****************************************************************************************************************

Think before you print