I think Adam has addressed the problems associated with a special treatment for China. With the increasing internationalization of our data I have often thought that India, Indonesia, Russia (& others) along with China have needed a to have ADM2 level indications in place name headings. The problems come with indirect subdivision since there are only 2 levels currently. I believe his solution is a possibility which could work very well if implemented. An alternative is 3 level indirect subdivision.
Asian Materials Specialist/PCC Liaison
Western Washington University
Bellingham, WA 98225-9103
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 10:26 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] CEAL Survey on RDA Change Proposal on Geographical Names in China
Geographic subdivision would work the same way it does now when a lower
level jurisdiction is included in a heading to break a conflict. There
can only be two geographic subdivisions in LCSH. The first is the
country, the second is whatever is left:
Wuhan Shi (Hubei Sheng, China) as a subdivision:
$z China $z Wuhan Shi (Hubei Sheng)
Shangrao Diqu (Jiangxi Sheng, China) as a subdivision:
$z China $z Shangrao Diqu (Jiangxi Sheng)
The problem that I see with this potential proposal is that it is
unprincipled and would create a completely different practice for one
country than is done for any other. Russia, Brazil, Mexico, India,
Indonesia and others are also very large countries either by territorial
area or by population, so why should China be singled out for a unique
practice? And what is the principle for deciding which country/countries
would have this different practice? It would also be useful to users to
know what state of Mexico a place is in, wouldn't it? Or what oblast in
Russia a place is in.
I think we may be asking headings to do too much. I think the place for
information about the names of first- and second-level administrative
divisions that a place is located in properly belongs as separate data
elements in the authority record for that place. Systems could then pull
this information from authority records when needed. CEAL might want to
consider proposing the addition of elements to record this information in
RDA records for a place, so that we end up with something like this:
Preferred name of place: Wuhan Shi
Province/State/Etc.: Hubei Sheng
A system could then assemble the heading Wuhan Shi (China) or Wuhan Shi
(Hubei Sheng, China) depending on display needs or whether the preferred
name is in conflict with another name in the same country.
Adam L. Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 685-8782 fax
[log in to unmask]
On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, NANCY K Brown wrote:
> Just curious ... in other cases where state/province is used as the qualifier, the heading is [local place] ([state]), omitting the country. I can see why including China in the heading would be helpful, but I wonder how you envision indirect subdivision working for these headings. Would it be $z China $z Province $z Local Place or something else? And would using three subdivisions for Chinese headings, but not for other countries where headings are qualified by state/province be problematic or not?
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Deng, Shi [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 9:33 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [PCCLIST] CEAL Survey on RDA Change Proposal on Geographical Names in China
> [Message being cross-posted; please excuse the duplication, and also feel free to forward to other interested parties.]
> Dear all,
> The Committee on Technical Processing of the Council on East Asian Libraries (CEAL) is conducting a survey to solicit input from CEAL community on a tentative proposal the Committee is working on with regard to the form of Chinese geographical names used in bibliographic records. The Committee would like to solicit input from you as well.
> Under current AACR2 rules, place names in China below the provincial level are entered directly with the qualifier ?(China).? The name of province is not included in the qualifier unless there is another place with the same Romanized name exists in a different province. The new cataloging code RDA will have the same rule unless a proposal for change is filed and accepted.
> Because of the size of its territory as well as the large number of provinces in China, it?s often difficult for users to identify the exact location of a place without the name of the province. For the same reason, it also takes longer for catalogers to establish and/or assign subject headings.
> The Committee would like to propose that all Chinese geographical names under provincial level be established with ?([Province], China)" as a qualifier regardless of whether there is a conflict with another name or not. We believe that this change will be very helpful for both catalogers as well as reference staff in providing better services to users.
> For example:
> Current practice: Proposed practice:
> Wuhan Shi (China) Wuhan Shi (Hubei Sheng, China)
> Shangrao Diqu (China) Shangrao Diqu (Jiangxi Sheng, China)
> Your input will be extremely important for us to determine if such a proposal is well supported and worth pursuing. Therefore, please take a few minutes to answer some simple questions listed in the survey:
> Thank you very much for your help!
> Shi Deng
> Chair, CEAL Committee on Technical Processing
> UCSD Libraries
> [log in to unmask]