PCC Resources for
See also: FAQ on BFM, FAQ on 670s; FAQ on UTs;FAQ on corporate names; FAQ on geographic names
- How is "usage" determined in establishing a new personal name heading?
- Is usage determined in the same way for corporate names?
- Are there specific guidelines NACO catalogers should observe when determining which of duplicate headings should be deleted?
- What should a NACO cataloger do if a personal name NAR exists in the NAF without dates and the cataloger discovers birth and/or death dates for the person?
- No? Why is that? I thought we could now add death dates to personal name headings?
- What should a NACO cataloger do when creating a NAR for a personal name and birth and/or death dates are available but the heading for the same person appears in bibliographic records without dates?
- What if the NACO library has the same item for which the NAR was created (without dates) and the cataloger finds that the item did contain the author's birth date, etc., shouldn't the heading be changed?
- What if the NAR was created for a CIP and the NACO library has the published item that shows dates for the author, shouldn't the dates be added to the heading?
- What if the date in the personal name heading is inaccurate, should the heading be changed in this case?
- What about name headings that have dates with "d. 1825" or "b. 1910" and either birth or death dates are found? Aren't these technically inaccurate and shouldn't they be changed?
- When are headings based on CIP information that differ from the published item eligible for change?
- When should an earlier established authorized access point be included as a cross reference (4XX) coded $w = nne in an existing NAR?
- When should an AACR2 established (1XX) heading be included as a variant access point (4XX) when the AACR2 NAR is evaluated and re-coded to RDA?
- Isn't a personal name heading considered inaccurate if a cataloger leaves out the additions called for by LCRI22.17 and 22.18?
- Is it OK to add qualifying information to a new personal name heading when it falls into the LCRI 22.3A category when there are unestablished headings used on bibliographic records that match the form on the chief source for the same author being established..?
- May the guidelines in LCRI 22.17-20 be applied order to avoid conflict with unestablished headings on bibliographic records in the file in which I'm cataloging? ...
- What should a NACO cataloger do if there are unestablished headings for other persons in the file in which the cataloging is conducted (e.g., OCLC or SkyRiver) which conflict with the heading being established and there is no additional information to differentiate the names?
- Should catalogers add references beyond those called for by the rules and the LCRIs, if those references would enable automatic conflict detection and updating of known bibliographic records, which use a variant heading for the same person?
- If an NAR is being created for an author born in Canada, do we need to consult LAC?
- Is it true that PCC members may no longer create new undifferentiated NARs, or add new identities to existing undifferentiated NARs?
- What is the correct order of subfields in the MARC 21 Authority 100 field?
How is "usage" determined in establishing a new personal name heading?
Usage is how an author's form of name is most "commonly found" or presented in the chief source of the resource being cataloged. The Descriptive Cataloging Manual Z1 supplement to the MARC 21 Authority Format 670 section, p. 6 defines usage as the "literal transcription of a name as it appears in a publication, most commonly transcribed in a bibliographic record in a statement of responsibility." Therefore, catalogers base new personal name headings on usage found on the chief source of the item being cataloged and/or the "usage" found in subfield $c of the 245 in bibliographic records in the file being searched, e.g., OCLC, the LC database, or others.
Note that literal transcriptions may appear elsewhere in a record, e.g., as part of the title proper, in an "at head of title" note, in a quoted note, etc. In deciding whether a transcription is a literal one, care must be taken to insure that the transcription has not been altered in some way by cataloging conventions used at the time the transcription was made, e.g., by abbreviation or by omission.
Is usage determined in the same way for corporate names?
Not exactly. Under AACR2 for corporate names it is necessary that the item on which the form of name is found (chief source or otherwise) must have been issued by the "body in its language." (Cf. AACR2 24.1A and 24.2B). RDA has no such limitation see RDA 11.2.2 and RDA 11.13.
LCRIs 24.2D and 24.2A also provide guidelines for determining a corporate body name when variant forms of name appear in the same publication, etc.
(cf FAQ on Corporate Names) RDA catalogers consult: RDA 11.2.3.Are there specific guidelines by which LC operates when determining which of duplicate headings should be deleted?
There are no specific guidelines for handling duplicates. NACO catalogers are encouraged to make the determination as to which NAR should be canceled and report this to their LC liaison. Generally:
- Prefer to keep a heading that has been coded for RDA over one coded AACR2 or coded for earlier rules.
- If both NARs are coded for AACR2 or RDA, prefer the heading that contains more information (e.g., dates, fuller form of name).
- If both headings are identical, prefer the one with the more complete set of information citations (670s) and references, 046 or 37X fields.
- If all things are equal, pick either one. Do not agonize over the choice!
In any case, useful information from the NAR being canceled is transferred to the NAR being kept. Only LC can cancel duplicates, but the NACO Program relies on independent NACO catalogers to recommend which heading should be kept in order to make the process more efficient. Unless there are other factors involved, the assessment of the NACO cataloger will generally be accepted by LC.
What should a NACO cataloger do if a personal name NAR exists in the NAF without dates and the cataloger discovers birth and/or death dates for the person. Should the cataloger:
- Add the information to the NAR and change the heading by adding dates and report BFM for LC records to their Coop liaison and BFM to the utility in which s/he works?
- Add the information to the NAR and leave the heading alone?
- Do nothing?
The correct answer is B. Add the information in a 670 citation and leave the heading alone. LC-PCC PS for 9.19.1.3 (Existing Authority Records) provides the guideline for this situation and states:
"Unless otherwise changing the 100 field, do not add a date of birth and/or date of death to an existing AACR2 or RDA authorized access point without dates."
Note that if such a heading must be revised later for another reason (as in the case of conflict), the date(s) may then be added.
No? Why is that? I thought we could now add death dates to personal name headings?
LC-PCC PS for 9.19.1.3 (Existing Authority Records) states: "Optionally, add a death date to an authorized access point that has an open birth date, and add a birth date to an authorized access point that has only a death date." This policy was intended to alleviate the perception of “wrong” or “misleading” headings that imply a deceased person is still living-- headings without open birth dates do not give such an impression. Catalogers must follow the existing practice for existing headings without dates: do not add dates to a heading where none existed previously (except in cases of conflict, etc. as usual). The principle of not making changes to headings when these are not necessary continues to hold true (cf. Response to question no. 12 below)
What should a NACO cataloger do when creating a NAR for a personal name and birth and/or death dates are available but the heading for the same person appears in LC bibliographic records without dates?
As of February 1, 2006 catalogers may create the NAR with dates in the 1XX, 4XXs, etc. but they should remember to report BFM for LC records to their Coop liaison and if necessary BFM to the utility in which s/he works.
What if the NACO library has the same item for which the NAR was created (without dates) and the cataloger finds that the item did contain the author's birth date, etc., shouldn't the heading be changed?
No. The overriding principle is that any change to a heading may generate database maintenance for LC and other libraries. The PCC's mission is to make more cataloging data available to users more quickly and efficiently. Generating database maintenance for technical services librarians is not in keeping with those goals.
Do remember to add the information to the 670 and/or to the 046 or 37X fields as appropriate so that in the event of a conflict that information may be used.
What if the NAR was created for a CIP and the NACO library has the published item that shows dates for the author, shouldn't the dates be added to the heading?
No. LC-PCC PS for 9.19.1.3 (Existing Authority Records) includes NARs created for CIPs. The principle is the same, PCC catalogers have a responsibility to bear in mind the needs of all users. Libraries all over the world use the authority file and often their resources are limited too.
Do remember to add the information to the 670 and/or to the 046 or 37X fields as appropriate so that in the event of a conflict that information may be used.
What if the date in the heading is inaccurate, should the heading be changed in this case?
Yes. When dates are incorrect in any heading (1XX) of a NAR they should be changed to reflect the correct date(s) and BFM should be reported in order that headings on all bibliographic records are corrected.
Headings based on information provided by a CIP t.p. or galley have a higher frequency of change because the published item often corrects discrepancies in dates, etc., and this may cause a heading to be changed. This is not the same as changing a heading just to add a date.
What about name headings that have dates with "d. 1825" or "b. 1910" and either birth or death dates are found? Aren't these technically inaccurate and shouldn't they be changed?
No. The presence of a "b." (born) or "d." (died) added to a name heading per the option in AACR2 22.17 accurately represent the information available at the time the NAR was created. LCRI 22.17 was changed to allow the addition of death dates to headings with "open birth dates" because this convention caused many catalog users to mistakenly assume that libraries did not have that information available, and in fact gave the appearance of a heading that had incorrect information.
Under RDA, the abbreviations “d.” and “b.” will be changed to become leading or trailing hyphens (e.g., -1825 and 1910-)
When are headings based on CIP information that differ from the published item eligible for change?
All headings in the NAF are eligible to be changed by NACO participants (within the parameters stated in DCM Z1). When a heading is found to be inaccurate regardless of the source of information, it may and should be changed (e.g., when a name or date is incorrect)
Headings based on information provided by a CIP t.p. or galley have a higher frequency of change because the published item often has a different form of usage on the chief source. This is not the same as changing a heading just to add a date or fuller form of name. (Cf. FAQ when creating NARs ... LAC, NUC & CIP)
When should an earlier established authorized access point be included as a cross reference (4XX) coded $w = nne in an existing NAR?
- When changing an authorized access point because dates were recorded inaccurately or a cataloger entered a typo in the authorized access point, do not add the inaccurate form as a cross reference.
- When an authorized access point is updated because the author has
abandoned the use of the previously preferred name represented in the authorized access point, a subfield $w coded "nne"
to denote the previous authorized access point should be added to the NAR.
Example:- Existing authorized access point:
100 1 $a Barr, Roseanne - Information on new resource being cataloged indicates that current usage is Roseanne Arnold
- Change authroized access point:
100 1 $a Arnold, Roseanne
400 1 $w nne $a Barr, Roseanne
- Existing authorized access point:
- When an authorized access point based on CIP cataloging is changed because its form on the published item is different from that on the CIP galley, a 4XX from the previous authorized access point should be added.
Note: in both cases B and C the cross references may be coded with a subfield $w nne only if the 4XX field is given exactly as is appeared in the 1XX field.
- Example:
Existing authorized access point based on CIP cataloging:
100 1 $a Williamson, D. W. - Information on book t.p.:
David Williamson; b. 1966 Lynchburg, Va. - Updated NAR:
100 1 $a Williamson, David, $d 1966-
400 1 $a Williamson, D. W. (David W.), $d 1966- (cross reference added but subfield $w coded "nne"" is not appropriate, thus not added) - Cross reference for Williamson, D.W. without fuller form of name or dates not added.
-
When should an AACR2 established (1XX) heading be included as a variant access point (4XX) when the AACR2 NAR is evaluated and re-coded to RDA?
Make a see reference for the old valid form of heading, with $w nnea, unless the reference itself is a valid RDA variant access point, in which case use $w nne. In case of doubt, use $w nnea.
Don't forget about NACO Normalization!
Example 1
AACR2:
100 1 $a Bailey, R. Y. $q (Richmond Young), $d b. 1893
RDA:
100 1 $a Bailey, R. Y., $d 1893-
400 1 $w nnea $a Bailey, R. Y. $q (Richmond Young), $d b. 1893
a) Use of abbreviation “b.” in subfield $d not valid under RDA
b) Subfield $q removed based on cataloger's judgment because subfield $d was being changed— the subfield $q did not have to be removed, but the cataloger did not consider it important for identification (see LC-PCC PS 9.19.1.4).
Example 2
AACR2:
100 1 $a Walter, David, ‡d 1948-
RDA:
100 1 $a Walter, David, ‡d 1948-2012
400 1 $w nnea $a Walter, David, ‡d 1948-
a) Date of death added and record recoded to RDA
b) Reference is valid under RDA, so subfield $w nne could have been used, but by coding the variant with subfield $w nnea, the reference is not "displayed," avoiding confusion between an open birth date alone, and the birth and death dates as in the updated authoried access point.
Example 3
AACR2:
100 1 $a Ryan, Robert S. $q (Robert Samuel), $d 1925-
RDA:
100 1 $a Ryan, Robert S. $q (Robert Samuel), $d 1925-
400 1 $a Ryan, Robert S. $q (Robert Samuel), $d 1925-
a) Normalizes to the same form as 1XX
b) Note that subfield $q retained at the time of recoding in this case since no other changes are being made to the 1XX
Example 4
AACR2:
100 1 $a Smith, John, $c pianist
RDA:
100 1 $a Smith, John $c (Pianist)
400 1 $a Smith, John, $c pianist
a) Normalizes to the same form as 1XX
Isn't a heading considered inaccurate if a cataloger leaves out the additions called for by LCRI22.17 and 22.18?
It depends. LC (and consequently NACO) catalogers are asked to apply the options of AACR2 22.17 and 22.18 to add dates and fuller forms of names when these are "readily available." The principle is to create a heading that is as unique as possible at the first instance in order to avoid a conflict later on and thus, minimize the impact of BFM on all users of the shared authority file. Certainly, when a cataloger is under review, the heading would be considered inaccurate and would be changed before contribution to the authority file.
The additions of dates and fuller forms of name should be viewed as helpful additions to identify names; however, the absence of these do not make the heading "inaccurate" per se. If a cataloger fails to find either a date or a fuller form of name when these were readily available in the item and contributes the NAR it is unfortunate; however, it serves little purpose to agonize and compound the process by creating BFM needlessly.
Under RDA LC and the PCC have agreed to not apply the option at RDA 9.19.1.4 to add the fuller form in all cases. Instead, apply LC-PCC PS 9.19.1.4 and provide a fuller form of name to the authorized access point if a part of the forename or surname used in the preferred name is represented by an initial or an abbreviation, and if you consider the addition of the fuller from important for identification. Add unused forenames or surnames only if needed to distinguish one access point from another..
Do remember to add the information to the 670 and/or to the 378 field so that in the event of a conflict that information may be used.
Is it OK to add qualifying information to a new heading when it falls into the LCRI 22.3A category (author's name varies in fullness) when there are unestablished headings used on bibliographic records that match the form on the chief source for the same author being established, but also find there are headings for other authors with the same name.
- Example: Chief source: Adam Doe
- Information found elsewhere: Adam Lawrence Doe
- File in which searching and cataloging is being
performed:
- Doe, Adam [heading on bibliographic record for
same author]
Doe, Adam [heading on bibliographic record for different author]
- Doe, Adam [heading on bibliographic record for
same author]
Yes. If the file against which cataloging and searching is being done includes unestablished headings on bibliographic records which would conflict with the heading being established (and qualifying data is known) add qualifiers to the newly established name even if this would result in BFM. The underlying principle here is that a cataloger is now in a conflict situation and must apply the guidelines in LCRI22.17-22.20 rather than adhere to the instruction in LCRI 22.3A.
RDA catalogers may apply 9.19.1.4 in such cases.
- Example: Chief source: Adam Doe
May the guidelines in LCRI 22.17-20 be applied (to new names being established) in order to avoid conflict with unestablished headings on bibliographic records in the file in which I'm cataloging?
The wording in this LCRI indicates that the guidelines may only be applied to conflicts with established names ("Add to the heading being established..." and "Change the established heading...") These alternatives mostly work in LC's catalog, where in principle, all names are established. In other databases (e.g., OCLC and SkyRiver), many names are not established. Consequently, the relationship of the unestablished names to this LCRI is ambiguous. Would you clarify?
Yes, catalogers may apply the guidelines in LCRI22.17-22.20 for resolving conflicts with both established and unestablished headings.
In a perfect cataloging world all access points would have authority records to support them. In recent years diminishing resources and increasing receipts in all libraries (including LC) have led to the increase of bibliographic records without authorized headings.
LC practice is to resolve conflicts with other headings in the NAF as well as unestablished headings in the LC catalog as encountered. The guidelines provided in LCRI22.17-22.20 are applied in this situation and BFM is performed as necessary.
PCC catalogers using AACR2 or RDA are encouraged to follow their local institutional and utilities' cataloging policies with regard to this question.
Note: there is no NACO requirement to create NARs for all headings used as access points on bibliographic records unless the bibliographic records are to be coded "pcc". Under RDA this practice will continue.
-
What should a NACO cataloger do if there are unestablished headings for other persons in the file in which the cataloging is conducted (e.g., OCLC or SkyRiver) which conflict with the heading being established and there is no additional information to differentiate the names?
There are two options open to NACO participants in this situation:
- Do not create a NAR for the heading (BIBCO participants--do not code the bibliographic record "pcc")
- If possible(and local policies/resources allow) create unique NARs for each of the other headings in the files
Should catalogers add references beyond those called for by the rules and the LCRIs, if those references would enable automatic conflict detection and updating of known bibliographic records, which use a variant heading for the same person?
Inherent in the PCC and NACO principles is the goal of making all cataloging workflows more efficient; since its inception the PCC has recognized the need to have a file that is easily and efficiently used by all. This goal can only be achieved by an authority file that is uniform, i.e., predictable, in its construction and formulation of headings and references. Given that there are over 700 NACO libraries, it is impossible for the shared authority file to meet the database maintenance needs of each individual library. LCRI 26.2 [p. 1, no. 3] allows catalogers to use judgment in making additional references and under RDA variants are not core, but the expectation is that those references would be constructed in the form consistent with the standard cataloging rules, practices, and policies currently used by all NACO participants.
-
If an NAR is being created for a personal author born in Canada, do we need to consult the Archives and Library, Canada (LAC)?
When applying AACR2, if the item being cataloged has a Canadian imprint, i.e., a Canadian city is the first place of publication (cf. DCM Z1 Appendix for Canadian Names), catalogers are asked to use the NLC form of name. When Canadian CIP information containing the NLC form of name is not available in the item, NLC sources must be consulted to verify a personal name heading on a NAR whether or not the author was born in Canada. (cf. FAQ when creating NARs ... LAC, NUC & CIP) Under RDA this requirement will no longer exist.
-
Is it true that PCC members may no longer create new undifferentiated NARs, or add new identities to existing undifferentiated NARs?
Yes. As of November 2013, PCC members may no longer create new undifferentiated personal name authority records, and may no longer add new identities to existing undifferentiated personal name authority records. See DCM Z1, section 008/32, for current PCC policies and instructions.
What is the correct order of subfields in the MARC 21 Authority 100 field?
There is no prescribed MARC order for the subfields beyond subfield $a in the X00 fields. RDA 9.2.2.9.5 provides guidance for the placement of words indicating relationship (e.g., Jr.) and MARC defines subfield $q as “fuller form of name.” When providing multiple additions to the name generally follow these guidelines:
- Subfield $d (date) should always be the last element in a 100 string unless the term (Spirit) is being added to the name. Add $c (Spirit) as the last element in a 100 string.
Example:
100 0# $a Elizabeth $b I, $c Queen of England, $d 1533-1603 $c (Spirit)
- Generally add subfield $c before subfield $q when also adding words, numerals, etc. indicating relationship. (See RDA 9.2.2.9.5 for treatment of Portuguese names)
Example:
100 1# $a McCauley, Robert H., $c Jr. $q (Robert Henry), $d 1913-1979
BUT
100 1# $a M. Alicia $q (Mary Alicia), $c Sister, S.C.N.
- For exceptional situations, such as when subfield $a contains only a surname or only a forename or the name includes a prefix, etc. consult LC-PCC PS 1.7.1, section Access points for persons in name authority and bibliographic records, paragraph 3c.
- When a subfield $q Fuller Form of Name is recorded in an authorized access point in addition to a subfield $c Occupation and a subfield $d Date, the order of subfields is $q, $c, $d:
100 1 $a Smith, J. R. $q (John Robert) $c (Biologist), $d 1985-
Last Update: August 5, 2020 |
|---|
| Send comments to: [email protected] |
