Print

Print


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