Adam,
Thanks for explaining that and quoting the LCRI's.
Ted
-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 4:20 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Heading qualification question
If you wouldn't add (Firm) to the reference if it were used as the
authorized heading, then you wouldn't add it to the reference. LCRI 24.4B
says "Generally, do not add a general designation as a qualifier to a
corporate name containing two or more surnames (without forenames or
without forename initials)."
LCRI 26.1: "In general, construct a reference in the same form in which it
would be constructed if chosen as the heading." Also:
2) Corporate names
a) Qualifiers. Include qualifiers in the reference if appropriate to the
form in the reference even if the qualifier has not been used in the
heading because of earlier policies or because it is not appropriate
there.
I would assume the reverse to be understood too: Do not include qualifiers
in the reference if not appropriate to the form in the reference even if
the qualifier has been used in the heading because it is approporiate
there.
Adam
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010, Ted P Gemberling wrote:
>
> I am creating a corporate heading: J.-A. Brosson et J.-S. Chaude? (Firm)
>
>
>
> There are other usages Brosson et Chaude? and Brosson & Chaude?. I understand the (Firm) is added because the two
> personal names together do not ?convey the sense of corporateness.? Does (Firm) need to be added to those 410?s, also, to
> make the Ref Status code a (Tracings are consistent with heading)? The problem is that we generally assume Brosson
> et Chaude?, without initials, does convey corporateness.
>
>
>
> My understanding has been that ?Tracings are consistent with heading? requires that date qualifiers in 100?s be included
> in 400?s in personal name authorities. That seems to make sense with personal names, but I wonder if using (Firm) in
> the 410?s makes as much sense in this case.
>
>
>
> Thanks for any enlightenment you can bring to this.
>
>
>
> Ted Gemberling
>
> UAB Lister Hill Library
>
> (205)934-2461
>
>
>
|