Proposal: Revision of RDA 9.19

Tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Proposal: Revision of RDA 9.19

  1. Dominique Bourassa says:

    I agree that something should be done but I think the proposed wording in 9.19.1.2 is somewhat misleading. The instruction says:

    “Add to the name one or more of the following elements (in this order), as applicable: …
    d) the term Spirit (see 9.6.1.5), unless the Spirit has the same name as another person (see
    9.19.1.8)”

    This seems to imply that if “the Spirit has the same name as another person,” one will not “Add to the name one or more of the following elements (in this order),” therefore one will not add “spirit,” or one will not add it in the order proposed. But obviously it is not the case as 9.19.1.8 instructs to add the word spirit and the example given in 9.19.1.8 “Joel (Biblical prophet) (Spirit)” follows the order given in 9.19.1.2: saint before spirit.—Dominique Bourassa, CC:DA, Jan. 8, 2013

  2. Robert Rendall says:

    I understand how the reordering of the rules achieves the desired result, but would it be clearer to spell 9.19.1.8 out more explicitly? Something like “If the access point represents the Spirit of another person, construct an authorized access point consisting of the full authorized access point of that person followed by (Spirit)”?

  3. Robert Rendall says:

    Corection: … the full authorized access point for that person …

  4. Tracey L. Snyder says:

    Agree with Dominique and Robert.

  5. Robert Rendall says:

    The example Joel (Biblical prophet) (Spirit) illustrates that the desired result puts “Spirit” after the “term indicating a person named in a sacred scripture,” not before it as the order in 9.19.1.2 would have it.

    Note that the lettering of the elements of the proposed revision of 9.19.1.2 needs to be corrected – the second d) through g) should be e) through h).

Leave a Reply