Changing the topical Holmes heading to personal is indeed possible with the cataloger's toolkit. Instructions have been sent privately.
Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc. Twitter: GaryLStrawn Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300 e-mail: mrsm...@northwestern.edu voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306 Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2007.25.428 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 12:55 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character) This is clearly confusing more than myself. I appreciate the forwarding of the PCC list post. And I’m following this continued conversation with interest. When a fictitious character is already established in the subject authority file & the subject record is being cancelled & a “new one” reestablished in the name auth file it would seem to me that this is more a revision and less a new entry. This practical reality of a number of authority fields in existing records that need to be changed, should be part of the decision-making process. Perhaps one ought not to get bogged down in the practical, but really: it doubles the authority work (one cannot change 650s to 600s in Voyager, at least I have not come across a way to do this with Cataloger’s Toolkit) Sherlock Holmes is an excellent example that illuminates this change more obviously than some might. This creates odd records such as (OCoLC)436030124 for which we have 6xxs for fictitious characters that are variously formatted. Two fictitious characters along with Sherlock who has now gained mortal status: 650 _0‡a Russell, Mary (Fictitious character) ‡v Fiction. 60010‡a Holmes, Sherlock ‡v Fiction. 650_0‡a Holmes, Mycroft (Fictitious character) ‡v Fiction. Presumably Russell and Mycroft will get 600 treatment eventually. Whether they’ll be fictitious or not, remains to be seen. Excellent series, by the way. I look forward to seeing how the British Library proposal is received next month. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 4:29 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Thanks RE: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character) In a message to the PCC list dated September 4, 2013, Kate James of the LC Policy and Standards Division addressed this issue (with reference to the record for “Holmes, Sherlock”): *** … Regarding the issue of whether 9.19.1.2 f) should be applied, this is a source of ongoing debate because of the contradiction between the Core Element statement at 9.6 and the instruction in 9.19.1.1. 9.6 says, "Other designation associated with the person is a core element for a Christian saint or a spirit. For other persons, other designation associated with the person is a core element when needed to distinguish a person from another person with the same name." However, 9.19.1.1 says to make the additions specified in 9.19.1.2 regardless of whether they are needed to break a conflict. The intent of the JSC in approving 6JSC/BL/3 and 6JSC/BL/4 last year was NOT to automatically add the additions specified in 9.19.1.2 e), f), and g). However, because 9.19.1.1 was not changed, we are left with a contradiction. So for now, it is a valid interpretation to say that when creating a new NAR, you add a term of the type in 9.19.1.2 e), f), and g) even in cases of non-conflict, and it is also a valid interpretation to say that when creating a new NAR, you only add a term of the type in 9.19.1.2 e), f), and g) to break a conflict. Since this is an existing NAR, you should not change the 1XX form unless a the need to break a conflict arises. The British Library has done another JSC proposal to address this contradiction (6JSC/BL/13). This new proposal will be discussed at the JSC meeting in DC in November 2013. … Kate James Policy and Standards Division Library of Congress
