While I agree that the access point should not serve as a unique identifier for systems, there is still the need for users to distinguish easily between identically-named entities in an index.
So the discussion of what information should be included in an access point still seems worthwhile to me. --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Mary Mastraccio Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 1:00 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Titles of nobility Kevin wrote: It's when we're able to rely on identifiers that we can let go of the need for unique access points. Yes, and that needs to be the goal. Too often we limit designing for the future because of current practices. My comment was in reference to the German library needing to adopt Anglo-American practices. Mary L. Mastraccio Cataloging & Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678 -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:50 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Titles of nobility Mary Mastraccio wrote: > I hope that rather than changing your practice, the Anglo-American > practice will change to your practice--as in having the dates in a > separate field (046) rather than using a subfield $d. It has been > suggested that the 100$a does not need to be unique because other > data/fields supply the disambiguation information. Regarding access points in RDA, the intention is that they be able to distinguish between different entities. For instance, consider the following passages from RDA 8.6: "If two or more persons, families, or corporate bodies have the same or similar names, include one or more additional identifying elements in the access point representing the person, family, or corporate body. ... Indicate that the name of a person is an undifferentiated name (see 8.11) if the additional identifying elements to differentiate the name cannot be readily ascertained." The instructions for *access points* for both names and works explicitly say that elements should be added to make them unique. It's when we're able to rely on identifiers that we can let go of the need for unique access points. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
