That is what I thought. So how does that affect bfm being more for one than the other. Hmm. Maybe I see how.Gene Fieg
On Tuesday, April 23, 2019, Adam L Schiff <[log in to unmask]> wrote: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
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