I share Robert's concerns about the level of detail here, and whether it is appropriate in an international standard. The RSC is likely to rely on IFLA's Names of Persons for information/guidance like this, rather than embedding detail into Base RDA instructions. The IFLA guidance is relevant; for example, see Names of Persons – Hungary (2016), Names of Persons – Spain (2015), and Names of Persons – Mexico (2010).
It is interesting to note that all of these documents refer to compound surnames in some way or another, which lends validity to our concerns about RDA's coverage of that topic in particular.
Original Message:
Sent: Aug 01, 2025 05:23 PM
From: Karl Pettitt
Subject: Proposal to revise condition and option under Person: authorized access point for person
Thanks Robert for that clarification. Perhaps Kathy was trying to say the same thing and for some reason I wasn't understanding that. When you say "removal of examples illustrating this practice "what do you have in mind specifically? I don't currently do any NACO or SACO work so these kinds of instructions related to authorized headings isn't something I deal with ever. However, if the situation exists in which someone who is doing this work would run across this and require guidance on how to handle it in a consistent manner then I would say that Kathy's amended proposal would likely cover this. Also, does anyone know of other languages whose names might also fall under this umbrella and would the ability to omit or retain the initialized part cover those possibilities as well? I also think that submitting this proposal to NARDAC and potentially then on to the RSC will help flesh out any potential issues related to languages that we can't foresee amongst our committee but I like the idea of trying to cover these potentialities to the best of our ability.
So would everyone be on board with Kathy's amended recommendations related to both the conditions and options?
------------------------------
Karl Pettitt
Coordinator of Cataloging and Metadata Services
University of Denver Libraries
Original Message:
Sent: Aug 01, 2025 05:04 PM
From: Robert Rendall
Subject: Proposal to revise condition and option under Person: authorized access point for person
It's a misunderstanding to say this instruction doesn't deal with compound surnames. It was not written for cases like Michael J. Fox. No one familiar with English-language names would hesitate about how to record that.
This old instruction was written for catalogers who see an initial abbreviated element within a compound surname and already understand (because they know how Spanish or Hungarian names work) that it's part of the surname. It's telling them not to use that part of the surname as the "entry element" for the name. Instead, you "invert" the name at a later point, so the non-abbreviated part of the surname becomes the entry element.
Would they do this in other cataloging traditions? I don't know. Does this kind of very specific guidance belong in RDA? Probably not - and that would save you the trouble of figuring out how to say all this in terms acceptable for RDA. Maybe all that needs to happen is removal of the examples illustrating this practice.
------------------------------
Robert Rendall
Assistant Director for Cataloging
Columbia University Libraries
Original Message:
Sent: Aug 01, 2025 04:33 PM
From: Karl Pettitt
Subject: Proposal to revise condition and option under Person: authorized access point for person
The issues that Kathy brings up were some that began to muddy the water with this particular rule. One of the biggest issues I keep coming to is that this rule as it stands seems to serve a purpose. So do we change this rule or are we coming to the conclusion that this rule should be supplemented with another? In my mind this rule as it is written doesn't deal with compound surnames, despite the subsection title, and in fact is dealing with a situation where there is an initial preceding a surname that is not part of the surname as in Michael J. Fox. If I understand the PC PCC PS, it is saying to then record the surname (without the preceding initialized part) and retain the initialized part with the forename thus getting "Fox, Michael J.". If that is the case then modifying the second condition to:
A value of Person: surname is preceded by a part of a value of Person: name of person that is initialized but is not part of Person: surname.
This would then clarify that the initialized part is not a surname or part of a compound surname as in the case with Michael J. Fox (and many other names that include initials for middle names in English). This would also require a change to the subsection name to eliminate the reference to compound surname.
The option then could be:
Record a value of Person: surname that omits the part that is regularly or occasionally initialized.
I would also include examples such as the one mentioned to clarify what this rule is referring to. As to the question of which entity element to use the following definitions would come into play.
The definition of Person: name of person is:
A nomen that is an appellation of person in natural language and phrasing used in common discourse.
The definition of Person: preferred name of person is:
A nomen that is a name of person that is selected for preference in a specific application or context.
The definition of Person: access point for person is:
A nomen that is an appellation of person in natural language that is taken from a vocabulary encoding scheme or is constructed using a string encoding scheme.
The definition of Person: authorized access point for person is:
A nomen that is an access point for person that is selected for preference in a specific vocabulary encoding scheme.
Given these, I think it is correct to refer to the Person: name of person in the condition as this is what we are really referencing when deciding on an access point. I think that it would then potentially fall to the taskforce on compound surnames to discuss whether another rule is needed to cover cases in which a compound surname includes an initialized part such as the examples in Hungarian that have been discussed already. This discussion has actually been imensely helpful in helping clarify this in my mind. It still makes my head spin though:) I agree that there is actually quite a bit of work that could be done with just Agent, Person, Collection Agent, Corporate Body, and Family. Having a hierarchical visualization would be helpful in the RDA Toolkit which is why I had to create the visual that I shared.
------------------------------
Karl Pettitt
Coordinator of Cataloging and Metadata Services
University of Denver Libraries
Original Message:
Sent: Aug 01, 2025 10:53 AM
From: Kathryn Glennan
Subject: Proposal to revise condition and option under Person: authorized access point for person
Thanks for working on the visualizations, Karl. The more I look at these instructions, the more problems I see (many beyond the scope of this proposal).
In Authorized Access Point for Person, why are some of the subheadings "preferred name of person" and some are "name of person"? It seems to me that once you are working on creating an AAP, you are working with the preferred name of person.
Which one is being referenced is critical, I think. The sentence "A value of Person: surname is preceded by a part of a value of Person: name of person that is initialized" is problematic if we're talking about compound surnames. There's nothing about vocabulary or string encoding schemes under "name of person", so the name of person "Michael J. Fox" has a surname that is preceded by a part of a value of Person that is initialized. It's only once you get to the access point instructions that VES & SES are mentioned.
This observation leads to a bigger question: in addition to which term should be used in the subheadings in Authorized Access Point for Person - should all the "Person: name of person" references here be changed to "Person: preferred name of person"? Presumably each occurrence should be evaluated for appropriateness, rather than just making a blanket recommendation. (Future work for some group, I suppose.)
Because we want to focus our revisions on compound surnames, I think we need to carefully think about how to phrase our conditions/options to get the outcome we're looking for. This was the motivation behind my final condition (in Karl's document as conditions option 1): "A value of Person: surname is regularly or occasionally initialized." That thought process prompted the preceding condition, "A value of Person: surname is a compound surname, consisting of two or more parts separated by spaces or hyphens." These two conditions together focus on surname, not name of person. Note that all 3 conditions in option 1 must be met before applying the proposed condition option.
The final condition option in Karl's document, "Record a value of Person: preferred name of person that includes the part that is regularly or occasionally initialized." is much broader than surnames.
Now, one other broader question I have is why instructions about including or omitting parts of names appears in the access point instructions. Don't they really belong under how one determines the preferred name of person?
(Oh, and don't get me started on the instructions about "direct order" in access point for person & in authorized access point for person. Surely this is covered by the VES & SES instructions; their inclusion in Base RDA caused some confusion within CC:DA as we started to review this draft proposal. I think the key point in both of those "direct order" options is the phrase "with no amendments".)
Kathy
------------------------------
Kathy Glennan
Director, Cataloging & Metadata Services
University of Maryland Libraries
she/her/hers
Original Message:
Sent: Jul 30, 2025 06:09 PM
From: Karl Pettitt
Subject: Proposal to revise condition and option under Person: authorized access point for person
I have spent the day trying to distill the various recommendations into a single document that we can use to make some final decisions with. I'm a visual person so I tried to lay it out as simply as I can while still retaining the various recommendations. I have attached that document for your reference. I have also included another visual that I created to better understand the broader picture in RDA related to surnames and initials. My own preferences are as follows:
Subsection Name
Option 1
I think this retains the original intent of this rule which is to..."Take regular or occasional initializing of a part preceding a surname as an indication that the part is not used as part of the surname."
Conditions
Option 3
I actually think the current set of conditions is the best option. It covers the heart of what this is getting at. I could not think of a better way to write these.
Condition Options
Option 2
This option incorporates the latest update that Kathy came up with which I think also covers the circumstances that the rule is meant to cover. I added an additional one that gets at the LC PCC PS related to this condition. The LC PCC PS says: Omit the regularly or occasionally initialized part of the name from the value of Person: surname but retain it as part of the value of Person: preferred name of person as a whole, considering it part of the forenames, etc. Record the remaining surname first, followed by a comma and space, followed by the other parts of the name.
The last condition option takes this policy statement, and the others that follow it, and provides a specific option covering the need to retain the initialized part as part of the Person: preferred name of person even if it is not retained for the Person: surname.
What do you all prefer related to the options presented here? Once we have a consensus I will rewrite the proposal to reflect the agreed upon changes.
Thanks,
Karl
------------------------------
Karl Pettitt
Coordinator of Cataloging and Metadata Services
University of Denver Libraries
Original Message:
Sent: Jul 25, 2025 12:30 PM
From: Karl Pettitt
Subject: Proposal to revise condition and option under Person: authorized access point for person
I think this aligns with what the intent of the rule was in the first place and also with the policy statements in so far as I understand them. I think your previous suggestions should be considered by the compound surname group as a possible need within RDA to cover that potential scenario.
------------------------------
Karl Pettitt
Coordinator of Cataloging and Metadata Services
University of Denver Libraries
Original Message:
Sent: Jul 25, 2025 12:07 PM
From: Kathryn Glennan
Subject: Proposal to revise condition and option under Person: authorized access point for person
Robert has a great observation!
I think the Official RDA instruction is based on original RDA 9.2.2.10, which includes this sentence: "Take regular or occasional initializing of a part preceding a surname as an indication that the part is not used as part of the surname."
If we still want to create a proposal to address this situation, I suggest the following revisions of my two condition/options (single underline is new text in relation to Official RDA):
CONDITION OPTION
Record a value of Person: surname that omits the part that is regularly or occasionally initialized.
CONDITION OPTION
Record a value of Person: surname that includes the part that is regularly or occasionally initialized.
Kathy
------------------------------
Kathy Glennan
Director, Cataloging & Metadata Services
University of Maryland Libraries
she/her/hers
Original Message:
Sent: Jul 25, 2025 10:59 AM
From: Robert Rendall
Subject: Proposal to revise condition and option under Person: authorized access point for person
I'm catching up on the details of this discussion, so apologies if I'm missing something.
If the option currently in RDA is meant to tell you: when you see Sz. Szentpál Maria, record it as Szentpál, Maria Sz., then I think instead of
A value of Person: surname is preceded by a part of a value of Person: name of person that is initialized.
the condition should be
A value of Person: surname includes a part that is initialized.
And then I don't understand the option:
Record a value that omits the part that is regularly or occasionally initialized.
You don't want to omit the initialized part entirely, you just don't want to record it as part of the surname, even though it is part of the surname. But maybe I'm misunderstanding the logic here.
I really wonder whether this kind of detail belongs in RDA at all. Can't we just cover this with the option used for other situations?
Determine frequent usage by consulting alphabetically arranged lists published in a language, place of residence, or place of activity of the person.
------------------------------
Robert Rendall
Assistant Director for Cataloging
Columbia University Libraries
Original Message:
Sent: Jul 09, 2025 10:44 AM
From: Karl Pettitt
Subject: Proposal to revise condition and option under Person: authorized access point for person
Please review the proposal for revisions in the RDA Toolkit attached. If liaisons could also share with their colleagues that would be appreciated. The proposal was mentioned at the ALA Annual meeting and includes recommendations to revise the subheading, add examples, and add two additional options. Anyone is welcome to comment on this proposal. Please submit your responses by the end of day on Friday, July 25th. After the comments I will let everyone know what our next steps will be. Thanks to all those mentioned in Kathy's discharge of the taskforce for their work on this.
------------------------------
Karl Pettitt
Coordinator of Cataloging and Metadata Services
University of Denver Libraries
------------------------------