Print

Print


But by this argument, anytime a person changes their name you would keep the access point for the name as found on the manifestation.  That's clearly not what RDA says to do.  For example, all of the works authored by Bruce Jenner in the 1970s through about 2015 are now entered under Caitlyn Jenner because Bruce Jenner/Caitlyn Jenner are not considered two different persons.  As Bob said, a work can have only one authorized access point, so if Westmacott's works are now entered under Christie, the access points on the earlier manifestations must be changed to Christie.  Whether Westmacott can then become an added entry on those works is an interesting question.  I could see an argument for those manifestations that have both names on them (Christie writing as Westmacott), but don't see how the rules justify adding both names on records where only one appears.  Of course, if at some point Westmacott gets treated as a variant name of Christie, then adding Westmacott is not possible at all.

Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Guy Vernon Frost <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 9:08 AM
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: two pseudonym questions
 
I agree with Ted. It makes more sense to keep these works under their original name. That's how they would be searched in the OPAC because it was originally known by that name. You could add a 700 for Christie with the relationship in the $i Real identity: in the bibliographic record for additional access. There is a mechanism in place to connect all of the names, which would include the 400 Christie form.

Guy Frost, B.M.E., M.M.E., M.L.S., Ed.S.
Professor of Library Science/Catalog Librarian
Founder: New Age Movements, Occultism and Spiritualism Research Library (NAMOSRL)
NAMOSRL (
Vtext): https://vtext.valdosta.edu/xmlui/handle/10428/2169
NACO Georgia Funnel Coordinator
Odum Library/Valdosta State University
Valdosta, Georgia 31698-0150
229.259.5060
[log in to unmask]
FDLP 0125

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Gemberling, Ted P <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 11:57 AM
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] two pseudonym questions
 
Delivered From External Sender

I think that’s an argument that the AAP must continue to be Westmacott, even if the title page says “Christie writing as Westmacott.” It would not make sense to make the original edition have main entry Christie in my opinion.

 

Ted Gemberling

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 10:46 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] two pseudonym questions

 

In the model we are following an entity (such as a work, expression, person, etc.) can have one and only one instance and that instance has one and only one authorized access point.

 

Under RDA we are to record “as a minimum the work manifested” (0.6.8).This is done in a MARC bibliographic record in our current environment by recording the authorized access point for the work either in 1XX + 240, 1XX + 245 subfield $a (when that subfield is exactly the same as the preferred title of the work), or 7XX field(s). The character strings in these fields need to match exactly the character strings in the corresponding authority record (if it exists).

 

So yes, if the authorized access point for a work changes, the authorized access points recorded in existing bibliographic records (at least those emanating from PCC) do need to be changed because the old form is no longer accurate and no longer represents the “work manifested” relationship to the record. This is what we do if the authorized access point for a person changes for whatever reason (e.g., a death date is added, or the preferred name changes for some reason--we go back and change all the forms in old bibliographic records to match the new form); the same applies to authorized access points for works.

 

Bob

 

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Gemberling, Ted P
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 9:16 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: two pseudonym questions

 

But would you recommend going back to the original publications and changing the AAP to Agatha Christie? I think that would be confusing.

 

Then you would have to tell people to put on a 700 for Westmacott. Not everyone would do it.

 

Just my two cents.

 

Ted Gemberling

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Jessica Janecki
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 10:09 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] two pseudonym questions

 

I believe that since these three works have been republished as attributed to Agatha Christie the AAP should be changed to Agatha Christie. I seem to remember that a decision was made with the Richard Bachman books began to be republished with Stephen King on the title page, but I am struggling to find any documentation.

 

Jessica Janecki

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 11:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] two pseudonym questions

 

Agatha Christie wrote six romance novels under the pseudonym Mary Westmacott per the Westmacott authority. Currently there are three titles established under Westmacott in the LCNAF. All three have been republished in recent years as "by Agatha Christie writing as Mary Westmacott." This raises several questions.

 

1. When this formulation is used, which is the correct choice for a work's authorized access point--the "by" name, or the "writing as" name? How should we interpret "Works by this author are entered under the name used in the item" in this case?

 

2. When all titles initially published under a pseudonym are republished under an author's better known identity, should the pseudonym change in LCNAF from a separate 100 to a 400 under the better known identity? 

 

3a. If the 100 does become a 400, is it still appropriate to preserve 400 name/title entries established under a name no longer established separately? For example:

100 1 $a Christie, Agatha, $d 1890-1976. $t Giant's bread

400 1 $w nne $a Westmacott, Mary, $d 1890-1976. $t Giant's bread

 

3b. If a title published under the pseudonym was never established,  is it still appropriate to have 400 name/title entries under a name no longer established separately? For example: 

100 1 $a Christie, Agatha, $d 1890-1976. $t Daughter's burden

400 1 $a Westmacott, Mary, $d 1890-1976. $t Daughter's burden

 

4. In these cases, if a pseudonym like Westmacott is preserved as a separate 100 identity and does not become a 400 for Christie, can both names appear as access points in bib records, e.g., one as 100 and the other as 700?

 

The catalog records entered under Westmacott in OCLC indicate a fair amount of uncertainty how to deal with these cases.

 

Thanks,

 

Stephen

--

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