Ralph, My understanding of references has been that each reference should be in full AACR2 form and that each reference has the *potential* of being the heading. At 02:10 PM 7/27/98 -0500, you wrote: >hi, >fyi, we had a question come up today asking why references >from variant dates are not made. >for example: > >100 10 Smith, Sally, $d 1636-1709 >670 Bios of all Sallies $b (Sally Smith; b. Jan 3, 1636; d. >Jan. 3, 1709) >670 Best of Sally Smith [SR] p1997 $b (b. Jan. 3, 1635; d. >Jan. 3, 1709) > >what instruction(s) in the NACO documentation makes it clear >in this situation why one does NOT make a reference from: >400 10 Smith, Sally, $d 1635-1709 >?? > >I referred this question to my contact at LC (Joe Bartl). >He conferred with CPSO. Everyone agrees that there is no >specific instruction explaining NOT to make this kind of >reference, when the only variant information is in the >date information. > >The practice is inferred from the RI for 26.2: > >Referring from Variant Forms > 2) Trace a reference from each variant that affects the primary elements of the name. For the >normal, inverted heading this mean variations in all elements to the left of the comma and in the first >element to the right of the comma. > >That is, date information in the heading is not one of the primary elements. > >I think it would be helpful to have this stated clearly some place >in that RI, and would recommend to CPSO to add a statement to that effect. > >Thanks, > >--Ralph P. > >-- >A. Ralph Papakhian, Indiana University Music Library >Bloomington, IN 47405 812/855-2970 [log in to unmask] >co-owner: [log in to unmask] > Rosalie E. Katchen Hebraica Librarian Brandeis University Libraries MailStop 045 P.O. Box 9110 Waltham, MA 02254-9110 Tel: 781-736-4687 FAX: 781-736-4675 [log in to unmask]