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 22.214.171.124: 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 126.96.36.199: 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 188.8.131.52[log in to unmask]" alt="http://access.rdatoolkit.org/images/rdalink.png">).
Policy and Standards Division
Library of Congress
Thanks everyone for the responses.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Acquisitions & Discovery Enhancement