If we're voting, I've been lobbying for this since RDA was published, both for families and fictitious characters. It is against basic authority principles to have two different access points for the same entity. And I agree with Richard, the broader LCSH family name terms could certainly coexist with the more specific RDA family name authorized access points.
Bob Robert L. Maxwell Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept. 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. -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Wayne Richter Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 8:58 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] fictitious characters in RDA Richard Moore said "I'd also like to see the same treatment for family names. RDA NARs are supposed to be for more specific family entities, and LCSH for more general, but works often have very specific family groupings as their subject, and there is no reason why general and specific authorities for families could not be established to RDA principles, and co-exist in LC/NAF." I would also very much like to see this adopted. Wayne Richter Asian Materials Specialist The Libraries Western Washington University Bellingham, WA 98225-9103 ALCTS CC:AAM
