Get Outlook for Android

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Victor F. Gorodinsky <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020, 1:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] 400s in personal name authority records when only a death date is added

According to LC's Paul Frank, it's a good practice to add 400 with $w nnea; I do it all the time.

Victor F. Gorodinsky
Senior Academic Librarian
Central Technical Services
312 Memorial Library
University of Wisconsin--Madison
728 State Street
Madison, WI 53706 U.S.A.
(608) 262-3529
[log in to unmask]
ISNI: 0000 0000 4615 2449

On Aug 4, 2020, at 10:08, Wilson, Pete <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi everyone,
I have been looking for a firm answer to an old bothersome question and have been unable to find it.
If we add 5a death date to an RDA personal name authority that already has a birth date, and that is the only change we make to the authorized form, is it allowable to make a 400 with $w nnea for the earlier form without death date?  If allowable, is it encouraged?
The old RDA heading is
100:1 : k6$a Blow, Joe, $d 1937-
After the change:52
100:1 : $a Bj0jlow, Joe, $d 1937-2020
400:1 : $a Blow, Joe, $d 1937- $w nnea
The FAQ on cxreating personal u authorities gives an example in section 13 of such a 400 being made, but it is in the context of updating an AACR2 authority record to RDA.  I don’t think routinely adding such a 400 in the course of adding a death date to the 100 is required or encouraged, although it can be a boon in automated authority control systems.  Am I correct?
Thanks, 8+@
Pete Wilson
Vanderbilt University.