[RDA-L] academic degrees in authorized access points

[Watters, Tim (MDE)]

When I do this search in the OCLC authority file:
dx:rda and pn:ph.d.
A few of the results include an academic degree in the 100 $c
I did not find any instruction in RDA 9.19.1 to add academic degrees to the 
authorized access point. It seems like it would make more sense to add the 
profession or occupation.
Is this a case of cataloger's judgment?

Thanks

Tim Watters
Special Materials Cataloger
Library of Michigan
702 West Kalamazoo St
P.O. Box 30007
Lansing, MI 48909-7507
Tel: 517-373-3071
e-mail: watte...@michigan.gov

Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print?

[Watters, Tim (MDE)]

On   Tue, 30 Jul 2013  J. McRee Elrod posted:



We do not create records as an end in themselves for bibliographic utilities 
or catalogues, but as a service to patrons in identifying what they seek.



Similarly, identifying abridged vs unabridged audio books is an attribute 
patrons strongly seek but RDA does not address at all that I can find. I am 
wondering if it could go in a bracketed 250?


Tim Watters
Special Materials Cataloger
Library of Michigan
702 West Kalamazoo St
P.O. Box 30007
Lansing, MI 48909-7507
Tel: 517-373-3071
e-mail: watte...@michigan.gov

[RDA-L] Place names in 370

[Watters, Tim (MDE)]

Kevin is absolutely correct.  Library users inform me that geographic 
qualifiers for some corporate bodies are incorrect because I omitted a critical 
part of the name when I created the AAP.  For example, a few patrons have 
pointed out that a particular cemetery is NOT in the city of Saint Joseph; 
rather, it is in the Saint Joseph Township.  The city and township are distinct 
and separate entities.  Unfortunately LC-PCC PS  16.4 requires that the 
critical part of the name (Township) cannot be included.

Tim Watters
Special Materials Cataloger
Library of Michigan
702 West Kalamazoo St
P.O. Box 30007
Lansing, MI 48909-7507
Tel: 517-373-3071
e-mail: watte...@michigan.govmailto:watte...@michigan.gov




Kevin M. Randall wrote:



It does not make sense to me, when you end up with a qualifier that is 
ambiguous or wrong.  This is not analogous to cross-referencing a variant of a 
variant.  This is deliberately making something not only less specific than it 
could or should be, but sometimes actually wrong--and all for some unknown 
reason.  If you have two distinct places that have the same name, and the only 
difference in the AAP for the place name is the addition of a qualifier (such 
as : North, : South, : Province, : Township, etc.), that qualifier is a 
critical part of the name for the purpose of identifying the place (else why 
are we using it anyway?).  If you need to use the place name as a qualifier for 
another name, removing the place name's qualifier immediately obscures the 
identity of that place.  Place A (Larger Place) is NOT the same as Place A 
(Larger Place : Township).  If I'm formulating the AAP for the name of a place 
or body located in Place A Township, and need to use the name of the township 
as a qualifier, leaving out the word Township results in an AAP with the 
WRONG place name in the qualifier.