On Fri, 4 Oct 2013, Kevin M Randall wrote:
Steven Arakawa wrote:
If all work/expression AAPs are entered as 700 a/t analytics, the title in 245
is exposed and the incidence of conflicts requiring 130 would increase
substantially, no?
There would be no increase resulting from such a change, because there
would not be a change in the guidelines for constructing the AAP.
Also, if we stopped using 240, it would also make sense to stop using
130. Just like 100/240 would be replaced by 700 a/t, the 130 would be
replaced by 730.
That's what I don't understand in the current thread. Why would 1XX/240
be replaced by 7XX a/t? Why would we not simply use the long-defined but
never used subfields in the 1XX fields? I.e., 1XX/240 becomes 1XX a/t, as
they are in authority records.
For systems that don't have authority control modules that can be
configured to authorize 1XX/240 combos (and for those that can, but where
doing so just introduces other problems), we'd all finally be able to
authorize name/title AAPs in the 1XX... I'd love to get rid of the 240,
but moving the data to a 7XX doesn't make sense to me.
Later,
kt
