New York (Colony) is a valid NAME heading, it just cannot be used as a
subject heading. If you search, you'll see that there are numerous
corporate name headings in the NAR for agencies of the colony. For
110 1_ New York (Colony). $b Court of Assizes
110 1_ New York (Colony). $b General Assembly
110 1_ New York (Colony). $b Governor (1664-1668 : Nicolls)
110 1_ New York (Colony). $b Supreme Court of Judicature
I think the difference between New York (Colony) and New York (State)
being accorded separate headings versus the one heading for Texas can be
found in a careful reading of LCRI 24.6 (admittedly however, the
difference is subtle):
When a succession of jurisdictions would be entered under the same name,
use one heading for all, no matter what differences there are between the
151 ## $a North Carolina
151 ## $a North Carolina (Colony) and 151 ## $a North Carolina (State)
151 ## $a Texas
151 ## $a Texas (Republic) and 151 ## $a Texas (State)
151 ## $a Hawaii
151 ## $a Hawaii (Kingdom), 151 ## $a Hawaii (Republic), and 151 ## $a
151 ## $a India
151 ## $a India (Dominion) and 151 ## $a India (Republic)
However, when the geographic qualifier added to a name to reflect its
current status is not appropriate for the earlier entity, use two headings
and qualify each.
151 ## $a Brabant (Belgium)
151 ## $a Brabant (Duchy)
151 ## $a Tuscany (Italy)
151 ## $a Tuscany (Grand Duchy)
151 ## $a Venice (Italy)
151 ## $a Venice (Republic)
151 ## $a Aragon (Spain)
151 ## $a Aragon (Kingdom)
It's this second paragraph that applies to the case of New York. The
state requires a qualifier because of the conflict with the city of the
same name (although it's not a "geographic" qualifier). The qualifier
(State) added to New York is not appropriate for the earlier entity, so
two headings are used and each is qualified.
Texas the state does not get a qualifier, so according to the first part
of this LCRI, the earlier jurisdiction is not established and the single
heading stands for both. I'm not necessarily defending this practice, I'm
just trying to explain what is being seen in the authority file.
Adam L. Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 685-8782 fax
[log in to unmask]
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Fox, Chris wrote:
> I just looked up the authority record in OCLC for New York (Colony). It has a 667 note which says: ?SUBJECT USAGE:
> This heading is not valid for use as a subject. Works about this place are entered under New York (State).? The Subj
> use fixed field is coded b, which means that the heading is not authorized for use as a subject heading. It would
> appear, then, at least in this specific case, that this authority record exists only to direct potential users of
> the heading to the correct one. New York (Colony) is not an authorized heading. I?ve seen this type of thing before,
> in the case of certain series headings (I think ? can?t really remember specific instances).
> Sounds like a tricky issue overall, though, and I can?t claim enough expertise to comment on it.
> Chris Fox
> [log in to unmask]
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Hank Wilson
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 1:56 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] NACO question : Republic of Texas government vs state of Texas government
> I'm no expert, but it seems to me that a heading for the Texas Republic (in whatever form it would be established)
> is a valid heading to pursue.
> You clearly have documents published/printed by the government of the Republic. That in itself shows there is a
> Past practice seems to have been to "fold in" the pre-U.S. statehood governments onto the authority record for the
> state name itself. The authority record for New York (State) once had a variant form for: New York (Colony).
> However, it was realized that an authority record for the colony was needed, as there were publications authored by
> that government. Now there are authority records for both governments.
> Here at the University of Oregon, we also had many, many bibliographic records with the heading "Oregon" when, in
> fact, the publications came from the then Oregon Territory (now since established).
> I would think you could do the same thing.
> Hank Wilson
> Univ. of Oregon
> Knight Library
> My opinion
> On 1/25/2011 12:10 PM, Pat Fowler wrote:
> I feel like I should know the answer to this question since I catalog at the Texas State Library and Archives
> Commission, but I am at a loss. We are cataloging a number of documents which originated during the Republic of
> Texas years (1836-1845). That means there are documents published by the state of Texas and also documents
> published by the Republic of Texas. The geographic authority heading for Texas includes this tag:
> 667 Includes old catalog headings: Texas (Province); Texas (Republic)
> Please excuse my ignorance, but does that mean there once was a heading Texas (Republic) but it is no longer used?
> What we are trying to establish is a heading for the Texas Department of State (not the current one for the state of
> Texas) but one for the Republic of Texas. I see one document in OCLC with this heading:
> Texas. ?b(Republic) Dept. of State.
> And there are others:
> Texas. (Republic) Congress.
> Texas (Republic). ?bCongress. ?bHouse.
> Texas (Republic). ?bCongress. ?bSenate.
> Texas (Republic). ?bWar Dept.
> There are headings for the Provisional government as well, but that is different from the Republic government.
> My question is: How do we differentiate between the Republic and the State?
> The Department of State for the ?state? and the Department of State for the ?republic?? etc.
> Thank you for your help.
> Pat Fowler
> Patsy D. (Pat) Fowler
> SirsiDynix Unicorn System Administrator
> Hosted site: GL3.1.3
> Head, Cataloging Department
> Texas State Library and Archives Commission
> Austin, Texas
> (The opinions expressed are my own & not necessarily those of my employer.)