Mac Elrod wrote:
> >The point that seems to be missed here is that "Fast, Howard,
> >1914-2003" is not a variant access point for the entity identified as
> >"Cunningham, E. V., 1914-2003". It is an authorized access point for
> >a different entity ... Both forms of name are valid authorized access
> >points; as such, it is entirely appropriate to use one of them in a
> >variant access point for a work entered under the other name,
>
> Are you saying that even if each is a 500 see also reference in the
> authority record for the other, you want *both* as entries (main plus
> added) in the same bibliographic record? I hope not. But this
> new terminology makes it difficult for me to understand what
> you are saying.
>
> To me, a cross reference is a cross reference, whether see or see
> also, and negates the need for an entry under the other form in a
> bibliographic record.
No, I didn't say anything about bibliographic records. This is currently
handled correctly, in our current MARC environment, by a 400 field in the
AUTHORITY record:
100 1# $a Cunningham, E. V., $d 1914-2003. $t Sylvia
400 1# $a Fast, Howard, $d 1914-2003. $t Sylvia
The authority records for Cunningham and Fast have the reciprocal 500 fields to
relate the two names to each other.
The authority record for the work "Sylvia" has the authorized access point
under the name of Cunningham, and a variant access point under the name of
Fast, since there are manifestations that use that name.
The bibliographic record for a manifestation will only use the authorized
access point for the work: Cunningham, E. V., 1914-2003. Sylvia
Right now, the confusing mess of MARC/ISBD data in our bib records makes it
difficult to see which pieces are this RDA element or that RDA element. The
future should be much, much easier.
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939
Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
