On 09/04/2013 21:44, john g marr wrote:
What’s not “uncertain” about an “approximation”?
The dates for Lotto, Lorenzo could be written in rda as “approximately 1480-approximately 1556”.
Cleaner, though, would be to use his “active” period for dates instead of his b.-d. dates.
BUT — has no one noticed that the access point “Lotto, Lorenzo” is unique and thus needs no further qualification?
Yet another strange solution without justification, just as “cm” is supposed to be a symbol instead of an abbreviation. As I have mentioned before, this is one of those “Gotchas!” that I used to love to find in records, that make no difference whatsoever for display or retrieval but is a vital distinction to some person, somewhere, although it makes no difference at all to anyone else. https://blog.jweinheimer.net/2011/08/re-spelling-of-cm-in-rda-records-3.html
That is, unless someone can actually demonstrate that it makes a difference to the general populace. But, we know that practical considerations are irrelevant when dealing with RDA. This is one of those “Gotchas!” that results in a lot of useless labor for catalogers.
“Cataloger judgment” is still a strange concept that means different things to different people.