I need input on a new authority record I need to create.

I found that the authority record for
n  90647360 Avicenna, ǂd 980-1037. ǂt Manṭiq
has confused two separate works of the same name. One was originally written in Arabic, and was part 1 of his larger work Shifāʼ. Some of this was translated into Latin in the Middle Ages. The other was originally written in Persian, and was part 1 of his larger work Dānishnāmah-ʼi ʻAlāʼī. This was never translated into Latin. (Source: The two are not translations of each other, though the Persian one has the same theme. (The other two extant parts of Dānishnāmah-ʼi ʻAlāʼī are also in a similar situation.)

After reading through RDA and the policy statements, I propose to keep “Manṭiq” for the more well-known Arabic work, and construct the authority record for the Persian work as
Avicenna, ǂd 980-1037. ǂt Manṭiq (Persian)
with variant access points for Risālah-i manṭiq  and Dānishnāmah-ʼi ʻAlāʼī. ǂn 1, ǂp Manṭiq .

I also plan to add Manṭiq (Arabic) as a variant to Manṭiq, and will add 667 “Do not confuse…” notes. Is there anything else that I should be thinking of?

Jay Shorten
Cataloger, Monographs and Electronic Resources
Associate Professor of Bibliography
Description & Access Department
University Libraries
University of Oklahoma
Co-ordinator, Oklahoma (Tornado) NACO Funnel
Co-owner, PERSNAME-L, the list about personal names in bibliographic and authority records
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>