In a message to the PCC list dated September 4, 2013, Kate James of the LC Policy and Standards Division addressed this issue (with reference to the record for "Holmes, Sherlock"):
*** ... Regarding the issue of whether 9.19.1.2 f) should be applied, this is a source of ongoing debate because of the contradiction between the Core Element statement at 9.6 and the instruction in 9.19.1.1. 9.6 says, "Other designation associated with the person is a core element for a Christian saint or a spirit. For other persons, other designation associated with the person is a core element when needed to distinguish a person from another person with the same name." However, 9.19.1.1 says to make the additions specified in 9.19.1.2 regardless of whether they are needed to break a conflict. The intent of the JSC in approving 6JSC/BL/3 and 6JSC/BL/4 last year was NOT to automatically add the additions specified in 9.19.1.2 e), f), and g). However, because 9.19.1.1 was not changed, we are left with a contradiction. So for now, it is a valid interpretation to say that when creating a new NAR, you add a term of the type in 9.19.1.2 e), f), and g) even in cases of non-conflict, and it is also a valid interpretation to say that when creating a new NAR, you only add a term of the type in 9.19.1.2 e), f), and g) to break a conflict. Since this is an existing NAR, you should not change the 1XX form unless a the need to break a conflict arises. The British Library has done another JSC proposal to address this contradiction (6JSC/BL/13). This new proposal will be discussed at the JSC meeting in DC in November 2013. ... Kate James Policy and Standards Division Library of Congress *** Robert L. Maxwell Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of M. E. Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 2:49 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Thanks RE: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character) Robert Maxwell <robert_maxw...@byu.edu<mailto:robert_maxw...@byu.edu>> wrote: > > No one should be "correcting" authorized access points that were correctly > established under current policy, which is to include the qualifier if there > is a conflict but otherwise not. But the material of 9.6.1.7 falls under the 9.19.1.2 group of additions that are applied to AAPs regardless of conflict. Unless you're referring to the core status laid out in the back half of the blue text below 9.6. Did I miss something here? -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex <http://www.minitex.umn.edu/>
