I unfortunately won't address no. 17. To other matters though, I do not think that what is stipulated in #3 and #4 are absolutely correct. RDA specifies the RECORDING of birth, death, and flourished dates as such. Likewise, it specifies the RECORDING of fuller forms of the name. It does not specify the manner of incorporating either of those data elements when CONSTRUCTING an controlled access point string (formerly known as an authorized heading). The shortcoming lies in the present iteration of the MARC Authority format which lacks an adequate "parking spot" for these data elements outside headings. (The multipurposed 670 does not qualify as adequate.)
The RDA Testing Group developed guidelines which address both types of elements, within the current constraints of MARC. The expanded use of $q in headings was, as the energetic discussions on various lists indicated, an inelegant if necessary solution to the problem. It is to be hoped that a new field in the MARC Authority format will be developed and approved expeditiously in order to accommodate the vast historical file of AACR2 headings and future RDA headings, which are all predicated on establishing the name by which "the person is commonly known." After years of converting open death date ranges to single birth date references, it is to be further hoped that the date solution is revisited as well. It would be disappointing to return to an environment where cataloger sloth or cluelessness were the inferences to be rendered by the presence of open death dates in those access points corresponding to individuals whose birth date precedes any reasonable expectation of vitality. John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College 807 Union St. Schenectady NY 12308 518-388-6623 [email protected] -----Original Message----- J. McRee Elrod wrote: Following the Amigos RDA @ Your Library electronic conference, I was asked these questions off list. Am I correct, particularly in no, 17? Thanks, Mac [snip] 3.Dates: 1941- not b. 1941; -1968 not d. 1968; active 1965 not fl. 1965? Yes, according to Library of Congress Policy Statements (LCPS). RDA calls for "born", "died", and "flourished", which we can ignore in view of the LCPS for the test period, which for the present I think we can assume would continue with implementation. 4.Are the cases in which increased use of qualifiers such as occupation spelled out in RDA? Yes. And regardless of when the author lived. There would be fewer undifferentiated authorities. RDA calls for fullest form of name as opposed to name as found, with more $q. Those forms are in 100 of RDA test records and 700 in authorities. I'm hoping for superimpositon with established forms left unchanged, and the 700 becoming a 400. The fuller form should be used only as practice for new authorities, with established form used if in the NAF, I think. [snip]
