Abbreviations: KD = Ken Dinin; SC = Sherman Clarke; JRD = Ross Day; DAS = Daniel Starr
NOTES ON SPECIFIC FIELDS
4XX FIELD
4XX : CONTROL SUBFIELD ‡w FOR CROSS REFERENCES
KD question:
Are we obliged to add $w values to indicate references from earlier AACR2 or pre-AACR2 headings when we create our records?
NACO Participants' Manual, 2nd ed. (1996), p. 30 says:
Linking References from Pre-AACR2 Headings (Note: Linking references from pre-AACR headings are now optional. OCLC NACO participants should not code the control subfield to indicate a linking reference from a pre-AACR2 heading unless they have verified that form in the LC database.)
Sherman has been accepting without comment our records with references that include $w nna / nnaa. Our obligation (if any) as an RLIN NACO contributor are not specified.
DAS comment:
The NACO training manual says (day 2, p. 33): "Use $w to show special relationships ...."
Since $wnna is optional that means we only need to use
$wnnaa Pre-AACR2 heading is not a valid AACR2 reference
$wnne Valid cross reference was also an earlier AACR2 heading.
The question remains: are these also optional, or are they mandatory?
SC reply:
We are only really obligated to build a full AACR2 record. "$w nne" is generally used for heading changes resulting from a rule revision or new understanding of the rules, the most compelling example being qualifiers of British place names (from county to constituent country within UK), and also on subject records. I don't usually use "$w nne" if I'm changing, for example, a married woman from her maiden name to married name when that changes the heading. That is, normal record maintenance within an AACR2 environment doesn't need to be coded $w.
Since the obligation is to AACR2, the adding of an old catalog form becomes, a priori, optional. If one of the references happens to match the old-catalog form, I'd probably tag it "$w nna." If I knew the old heading and it was not AACR2, I usually do a "$w nnaa." All references should be in AACR2 form so if the reference is old form, it should have a $w. 4XX $w should only be used for LC's earlier heading as found on an LC record, not for other folks' earlier headings.
KD comment:
This pretty much clarifies things. The example you give, however, in which you would not code an earlier AACR2 heading wnne: change of heading from maiden name to married name, makes me wonder about one of the records that prompted my query: n 87102497 (Gentileschi, Artemisia). Recent documentation has resulted in a revision of the life dates used in the heading, and the earlier version has been coded $w nne. Inasmuch as the change is not related to a revision or reinterpretation of AACR2 rules why is it given as a reference at all when the primary elements are not affected? Documentation justifying the dates used in the earlier heading is given in existing note 670-4.
1001 Gentileschi, Artemisia, $d1593-1652 or 3 4001 Lomi, Artemisia Gentileschi, $d1593-1652 or 3 4001 Gentileschi Lomi, Artemisia, $d1593-1652 or 3 4001 $wnne $aGentileschi, Artemisia, $dca. 1597-ca. 1651670 New ency. Brit., 1978 $b(Gentileschi, Artemisia; b. c.1597; d. after 1651; painter, proponent of Caravaggio's dramatic realism)
670 Letter from the author of Artemisia Gentileschi around 1622, Oct. 4, 2001 $b(b. 1593, the date certified by Artemisia's baptismal records; her last letter dated 1652 and she was definitely dead by 1653)
KD question:
In passing some of our recently produced NACO records into Watsonline from the Innovative authority file, I noticed the $w coding in the following record:
nr2001050479 1001 $a Henrique, Louis, $d 1852-1906 4001 $ w nnaa $a Henrique-Duluc, Louis, $d 1852-1906 670 $a LC database, Dec. 5, 2001 $b (hdg.: Henrique-Duluc, Louis, 1852-1906; usage: Louis Henrique)
Although the 400 reference is a pre-AACR2 form of the heading, i.e. a fuller form of the name not justified by usage, why should it be coded not to display? A similar example given in the NACO Participants' Manual (IX. Citing LC in RLIN & OCLC) is coded as pre-AACR2 without prohibition on display of the reference:
100 10 Guillermin, Gilbert 400 20 $w nna $a Guillermin de Montpinay, Gilbert 670 LC in RLIN, 8/24/93 $b (hdg.: Guillermin de Montpinay, Gilbert; usage: Gilbert Guillermin)
SC reply:
In the Henrique example, I produced it with "$w nnaa" because there was
no evidence of usage with the compound surname. Old heading is compound surname without usage to back it up; I would not rotate elements here (see also Aguilar, below)
This is of course parallel to the example you cite where there is no evidence of usage with the compound surname. In spite of the example, I would generally not make a reference that was not justified by usage.
400 : ROTATION OF COMPOUND SURNAMES
SC comment:
010 nr2001049515 040 NNMM $beng $cNNMM 1001 Aguilar, Walter 4001 Aguilar S., Walter $q(Aguilar Silva) 4001 Aguilar Silva, Walter 4001 Silva, Walter Aguilar 670 XII Congreso Peruano del Hombre y la Cultura Andina, 2001: $bv. 1, t.p. (Walter Aguilar) cover (Walter Aguilar S.) p. 4 (Walter Aguilar Silva)
Added rotation from Silva; though this could be seen as variant of variant, I would almost always do a rotation of compound surname based on usage (see also Henrique, above)
410 : REFERENCES FROM MULTIPLE LC FORMS OF HEADING
JRD question:
If LC has one record with the AACR2R form-of-entry (2), are 410s with
other LC forms unnecessary? Unless, of course, (1) is a later form of (2) -- or maybe just a cross-reference:
410 2 $w nnaa $a Huntington Library and Reading Room, New York
The first record, based on an “in processing” record, just doesn't count for much of anything. The 3rd is using the heading from the old catalog but was created between 1968 and AACR2 but without an authority record (so far) and therefore hasn't gotten an update yet.
5XX FIELD
510 : EARLIER / LATER HEADINGS
JRD question:
What is the proper procedure for citing a previous/later corporate entity for which there are no known publications? I have a “missing” link between two corporate entries (actually two I think). Do you cite them in a 410, and if so, which gets it, the previous or the later?
SC reply: If there are no known publications, or at least none within your purview, you should probably record the existence of the related names in 670 or 675 but not make a 410. And since there won’t be a related name authority record, no 510 to refer to. That’s the general thought; the particular case might lead to some fine tuning.
NACO Participants’ Manual, 2nd ed. (1996), p. 33:
* Earlier/later references are normally made only to connect immediately adjacent headings, thus creating a chain of "see also" references leading from one heading to another.
* In most cases, you will need to both establish your new heading, recording the earlier or later name in a 5XX reference and add a 5XX earlier/later reference and 670/675 field to an existing authority record.