Print

Print


I appreciate the additional comments on this issue.

Stephen, in this case it's a singleton--the person I'm establishing has only (as far as I can see) one work in OCLC (the one I'm cataloging).

And one problem I'm seeing with qualifying the 4xx is that it requires me, now, to research that person to find something to qualify it with, as it's not obvious from their very minimal AR.

So I think qualifying the 1xx is probably a better choice in this particular situation.

Thanks again,
-Ben

________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Stephen Hearn [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2019 6:35 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Qualifying a 1xx or a 4xx?

It would be helpful to know as Adam hinted whether adding the qualifier to the new name would cause it to differ from a body of existing bib heading usage for the person. If not, if the name being established will require no retrospective maintenance, then one could argue that

1. There is no conflict yet--the new name is not in the NAF
2. Changing a variant will require two authorities to be distributed instead of just one.
3. The simpler course of qualifying the new name is no added maintenance work, and less churn in the NAF, and within bounds for the LC-PCC PSs,which are about conflicts between existing headings.

On the other hand, if adding the qualifier will require additional bib maintenance, then change the 400.

Stephen

On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 2:26 PM Gene Fieg <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Gene Fieg <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2019 9:12 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Benjamin A Abrahamse <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2019 8:12:52 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[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 Iím not 100 percent certain.



--Ben



Benjamin Abrahamse

Cataloging Coordinator

Acquisitions & Discovery Enhancement

MIT Libraries




--
Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Data Management & Access, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
170A Wilson Library (office)
160 Wilson Library (mail)
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Ph: 612-625-2328
Fx: 612-625-3428
ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242