-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Am 17.10.2013 15:50, schrieb Heidrun Wiesenmüller: > Charles, Thomas and Richard, > The connection between a title record and a person record is not created by > the > use of a text string (AAP). Instead, the records are directly linked by > recording the identifier for the person record in the title record. For > example, > up to now, there is no text string "Wiesenmüller, Heidrun, 1968-" in the > authority record for my own person. Instead, the relevant fields look like > this: > > 100 Wiesenmüller, Heidrun > 548 1968 $4 datl Sure it is if you look at the /genuine/ MARC21-representation of your record at < https://portal.dnb.de/opac.htm?method=requestMarcXml&idn=122087801 > (linked from < http://d-nb.info/gnd/122087801 >): <datafield tag="100" ind2=" " ind1="1"> <subfield code="a">Wiesenmüller, Heidrun</subfield> <subfield code="d">1968-</subfield> </datafield> ... <datafield tag="548" ind2=" " ind1=" "> <subfield code="a">1968-</subfield> <subfield code="9">4:datl</subfield> <subfield code="w">r</subfield> <subfield code="i">Lebensdaten</subfield> </datafield> ("$9 4:..." is used since the codes used for designating the different dates still have to be sanctioned officially). But your cataloging system does not show 100$d since in the realm of GND this part of the authorized access point is considered as being purely derived from data components in the authority record. > The code "datl" makes it clear that this is a year of birth (there are other > codes for other kinds of dates, e.g. "datv" would be used for the date of a > conference). Many catalogs will still show something like "Wiesenmüller, > Heidrun, 1968-" to their users. This is done by automatically combining the > information from 100 and 548 for display. as you can see from the MARC21 representation of < http://d-nb.info/1030952124 > at < https://portal.dnb.de/opac.htm?method=requestMarcXml&idn=1030952124 >: <datafield tag="100" ind2=" " ind1="1"> <subfield code="0">(DE-588)122087801</subfield> <subfield code="0">(DE-101)122087801</subfield> <subfield code="a">Wiesenmüller, Heidrun</subfield> <subfield code="d">1968-</subfield> <subfield code="4">aut</subfield> </datafield> In addition to the linking identifiers in $0 the complete AAP from the authority record's 100 is "known" to the bibliographic record. Not all systems here store it this way but I would assume that even for systems which only store the linking identifiers it is a less expensive operation to fetch the AAP information from the authority record than to access arbitrary data fields. Several legacy systems were used to see only the name of the person in the AAP, since the current cataloging code RAK-WB does not even allow discriminating information for most names. As these systems switched to MARC-based data on occasion of the introduction of the GND early last year, these systems simply simply have not been modified in order to filter the $d's and other MARCisms from the headings, and now give the impression of AACR2 headings in descriptions which essentially still are governed by RAK-WB. > With the implementation of RDA, we plan to change this: We'll still record the > dates in 548, but will also have them as part of 100, similar to > Anglo-American > practice. I hope that this can be achieved automatically, as I wouldn't want > having to input the same information twice. There are cases, where the alleged birth date of a pseudonym differs from that of the real person. In that case there is a necessity to have explicit $d's in X00 which cannot be derived from data elements for the person. A solution for this has to be found, but for the majority of bibliographic and authority records nobody here could tolerate a solution where derived information from data elements has to be made explicit in the fields for access points. > After the discussion here, I now think that it would be equally possible to > keep > our current practice under RDA, arguing that our 100 is not really an AAP, and > that AAPs are not obligatory. But it may be easier for data exchange if we > conform to Anglo-American practice in this respect. Well, the current practice for exchange is to provide redundant information, and the internal mechanisms of ILS systems are different from that. Important however is the common ground in GND-land that a) AAP information (apart from the name proper) is usually to be derived from data elements in the authority record and b) the authority record must be referenced by its identifier (and not by search operations based on AAPs) > Titles of nobility like "Graf" (count) are even trickier, because up to now > they > were not recorded at all. For example, the preferred name for "Adolf Graf von > Schack" according to the RAK rules is "Schack, Adolf von". The title "Graf" is > not even recorded in a separate field. I believe this has something to do with > the legal status of the former nobility in Germany (but would be hard pressed > to > give you the details). However, I agree that it does make sense to record > them, > as people will most certainly associate them with the persons, whatever the > law > may say. I think there is a deep gap in understanding "titles of nobility" between anglo-american cataloguers and cataloguers mainly concerned with phenomena in the former HRE: "Duke of York" is a title of nobility, and "duke" alone is just an indication of the rank. Thus "Graf von Schack" is a title of nobility for the acting count of Schack, however - and there the differences start - "von Schack" is already indication of nobility for the whole family (there is no family "of York" in Britain, the current bearer of the title has "Windsor" as his house name and passing of the title is governed not by inheritance but by dynastical evolution) and furthermore "Graf von Schack" may also be the title of the noble family as a whole (in a certain interval of time: rulers could promote a distinct person, or promote this person hereditarily or they could promote the whole family!). To make further differences after the Reichsdeputationshauptschluss many ruling families lost their sovereignity but not their nobility (which may have turned "von Schack" or the like the first time into also a family name), and after 1918 all until then reigning families also lost all of their legal privileges and these families had to select civil last names. In Germany (but not in Austria) they were allowed to turn their title of nobility (for the family) into last names, thus "Graf von Schack" for a person lived after 1918 is a last name, still indicating nobility (not former nobility, since nobility itself has not been abolished in 1918, just turned into a kind of folklore). Or "von Schack" is the last name (still indicating nobility) and "Graf" only acts as an epitethon used by a certain person: You /can never/ be completely sure and the "legal truth" and the "name mostly used by the person" might differ. But you cannot even be sure wether "Graf von Schack" is the /name/ the person uses, it might also be that the person himself considers it as his name "von Schack" in combination with his (former, traditional, ...) rank "Graf"... > If we're going to add dates in 100, it now seems logical to me to put the > titles > of nobility there as well. it is logical for Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven (1925-2013), but for "Adolf Graf von Schack" (Adolf von Schack, Graf von Schack? or Adolf Graf von Schack, Graf von Schack??) already demands some research: NDB states at least that the rank "Graf" (of prussian nobility) was acquired in 1876 but this does not suffice to determine whether "Graf" then became part of the family name or not... viele Gruesse Thomas Berger -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (Cygwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iJwEAQECAAYFAlJgDpIACgkQYhMlmJ6W47NlvQP+OH0cvKnUtrfmxVWDFFpPdDOZ N8P9zIDMQ+nTaBw8a750AFo4aHy4f3qfyfgAmytcEUcwZlfl8JTOIBB2qyz5r1D6 pwd3+EN63WdYxZb+rkM4vhvKWKlxX4HJnBt1yCiVjlwpIYH9/CV3xyuNXnglIx2D 1xJU77dT10Lh6gqjAQs= =OXi3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
