LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST  October 2014

PCCLIST October 2014

Subject:

Re: [RDA-L] RE: Subordinate or not: fraternal organization chapters

From:

John Gordon Marr <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 27 Oct 2014 19:19:07 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (189 lines)

Hi Stephen:

 If you are referring to the "situation" regarding the matter of Leif Erikson Lodge, my feeling is that use as a subordinate name is logical, since it is (as an example) absolutely dependent upon and representative of the Sons of Norway and has absolutely no independent status. It cannot exist without its superior. Therein lies the difference from such institution as "named" museums (for example) merely *affiliated* with other bodies (e.g., states, universities, etc.)

 If you are referring to matters covered clearly by AACR-2 and not by RDA, I'd suggest two things. 1, just go with AARC2 as the simplest approach in all such cases. 2, pay more attention to the fact that RDA is simply not clear or concise or "standard" in general. Thus, you can't *obey* RDA throughout if, in fact, RDA favors "catalogers' prerogative" in many instances.

 If you are referring to the situation of RDA not being entirely practical or logical (or even perfect), I'm all in favor of subverting it in practice where disagreement with its content can be effective in designing alternatives that can facilitate changes to it. If you cannot try alternatives, then you are stuck with a stone monument to inflexibility at all costs.

 If you are talking about the manner in which politicians favoring authoritarianism rather than empathy effect their own election by making their opposition *look* less aggressive (dare I say "wimpy"?), then you have to consider being aggressive in response to them, with the eventual goals being the exposure and elimination of anti-empathetic authoritarianism from societies. A large chunk of the electorate does not vote on "issues", only on whether their proposed leaders seem capable of leading, even if it be straight to he**, locked and loaded.

Cheers!

John G. Marr
DACS
Zimmerman Library
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87010
[log in to unmask]

         **"I really like to know the reasons for what I do!"**
                                             Martha Watson

Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but sharing is permitted.




-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Early
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 12:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] [RDA-L] RE: Subordinate or not: fraternal organization chapters

What would be your own solution to this situation, John?

Stephen T. Early
Cataloger
Center for Research Libraries
6050 S. Kenwood
Chicago, IL  60637
773-955-4545 x326
[log in to unmask]
CRL website: www.crl.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Gordon Marr
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 11:46 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] [RDA-L] RE: Subordinate or not: fraternal organization chapters

 What is most interesting about this thread is that people can compulsively require decision-making to be based on blind obedience to rules (even when the rules don't exist) rather than on critical thinking based on logic.

And these people vote?

Cheers!

John G. Marr
DACS
Zimmerman Library
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87010
[log in to unmask]

         **"I really like to know the reasons for what I do!"**
                                             Martha Watson

Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but sharing is permitted.



-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 5:55 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] [RDA-L] RE: Subordinate or not: fraternal organization chapters

Patricia,

We also think that Sons of Norway (U.S.). Leif Erikson Lodge No. 1 is the preferred form of the name.  And Kate James pointed to the instruction in RDA at 11.13.1.3 that tells us to add (Seattle, Wash.) to the access point, if a chapter, branch, etc., is recorded as a subdivision of a higher body.  But I'm still not convinced that RDA compels us to record the lodge as a subdivision of the parent body.  If the name were "Lodge No. 1" then I would agree that it "simply indicates a geographic, chronological, or numbered or lettered subdivision of a parent body" 
according to 11.2.2.14.3.  But with the words Leif Erikson in front of Lodge No. 1, does it still simply indicate a numbered subdivision?  LCRI
24.9 told us yes, that it does.  But there's no policy statement like it to tell us that it does in RDA.

Adam

On Fri, 24 Oct 2014, Patricia Sayre-McCoy wrote:

> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 21:00:29 +0000
> From: Patricia Sayre-McCoy <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
> To: RDA Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>,
>     PCC Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: [RDA-L] RE: Subordinate or not: fraternal organization 
> chapters
> 
> You realize that this answer is coming late on a Friday afternoon after a very stressful week, and so will excuse any real dumb comments as being from the creature that has temporarily taken over my mind.
>
> I think Sons of Norway (U.S.). Leif Erikson Lodge No. 1 is the correct form.
>
> Sons of Norway (U.S.) is the parent organization and clearly needs a qualifier. Since you say there is no other Leif Erikson Lodge No. 1, there is no conflict if you use only "Leif Erikson Lodge No. 1" as the subordinate unit. As for the number, the examples given for 11.2.2.14.3 includes things like "Class of 1957" where 1957 is too generic to stand alone. I would  make a case that the number  makes "Leif Erikson Lodge No. 1" distinct enough and doesn't need its own geographic qualifier.
> Pat
>
> Patricia Sayre-McCoy
> Head, Law Cataloging and Serials
> D'Angelo Law Library
> 1121 E. 60th Street
> Chicago IL 60637
> [log in to unmask]
> 773-702-9620 (w)
> 773-702-2889 (fax)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam L. Schiff [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 3:09 PM
> To: PCC Discussion List; RDA Discussion List
> Subject: [RDA-L] Subordinate or not: fraternal organization chapters
>
> AACR2 24.9 has no equivalent in RDA:
>
> If a chapter, branch, etc., entered subordinately (see 24.13), carries out the activities of a corporate body in a particular locality or within a particular institution, add the name of the locality or institution, unless it is part of the name of the chapter, branch, etc.
>
> The LCRI for it says:
>
> The rule is for any type of organization that covers a large geographic area in which chapters, branches, etc., are necessary for local activities of the membership.  These chapters, branches, etc., can normally be recognized in two ways:
>
> 1)  The organization is a fraternal one;
>
> 2)  The designation of every chapter, branch, etc., includes a generic term that is either one traditionally used for such ("post," "lodge,"
> etc.) or an imaginative innovation to convey the same sense ("valley,"
> "stake," etc.).
>
> Consider the presence of any of these generic designations used for presumably all the chapters, branches, etc., as sufficient reason for subordinate entry in all cases.
>
> American Legion. William Peck Post No. 279 (Minneapolis, Minn.) Grand 
> Army of the Republic. St. Paul Camp No. 1 Scottish Rite (Masonic 
> order). Valley of Minneapolis Vasa Order of America. Carl XVI Gustav 
> Lodge 716 (Dallas, Tex.)
>
>
> None of this has been carried over in RDA or LC-PCC PS.
>
> The only relevant RDA instruction that seems to apply is 11.2.2.14.3:
>
> Apply the instructions at 11.2.2.14 to a name that is general in nature (e.g., contains neither distinctive proper nouns or adjectives, nor subject words) or that simply indicates a geographic, chronological, or numbered or lettered subdivision of a parent body.
>
> We recently had to set up a body called Leif Erikson Lodge No. 1.  It's a lodge within the Sons of Norway.  It's not clear to us that "Leif Erikson Lodge No. 1" SIMPLY indicates a numbered subdivision of a parent body.
> "Lodge No. 1" would we think.  But does "Leif Erikson Lodge No. 1"?  As best we can determine there are many other Leif Erikson Lodges within Sons of Norway, but no other numbered No. 1.  So the question is, which is the correct RDA result:
>
> Sons of Norway (U.S.). Leif Erikson Lodge No. 1 (Seattle, Wash.)
>
> Leif Erikson Lodge No. 1
>
> Leif Erikson Lodge No. 1 (Seattle, Wash.)
>
> Leif Erikson Lodge No. 1 (Sons of Norway (U.S.))
>
> or something else?
>
>
> If the answer is as we did it in AACR2 (the first result given above), then there's nothing in RDA or a policy statement that says to add the local place name as a qualifier unless it's part of the name.  Don't we need a policy statement if we want to continue to get the same result as we did in AACR2?
>
> I searched OCLC authorities for RDA fraternal lodges and did not find any that were established differently than we were doing in AACR2.  That implies that catalogers are not really applying RDA as written but simply carrying over their knowledge of AACR2 and the LCRI for 24.9.
>
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Adam L. Schiff
> Principal Cataloger
> University of Washington Libraries
> Box 352900
> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
> (206) 543-8409
> (206) 685-8782 fax
> [log in to unmask]
> http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
[log in to unmask]
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager