John Myers said:


>There is a proposal before the JSC to offer as an alternative the
>addition of a larger jurisdiction in the Place of publication element
>of RDA by a cataloger supplying such information in brackets when it
>is lacking on the resource.  This alternative would effectively
>restore the AACR2 instruction ...

No.  It is a great improvement on the application and misapplication
of the present AACR2 rule, which makes the addition contingent on a
need to differentiate the place from another, resulting in "London"
and "London [Ont.]".  The proposed RDA alternative would result in
London [England]" and "London [Ontario]".  The RDA rule as now written
could result in "London" for both places.  Both present and changed
rule would allow [London, Ontario], if place is not on the item.

>What I would like is a conversation about accomplishing the somewhat
>competing tasks we wish this element (and others) to achieve:
>identification of the resource by transcribing the data found vs.
>fostering selection of the resource by providing consistent data ...

Always providing larger jurisdiction would create more consistent data
than depending on the vagaries of publishers in identifying their
location.  Substituting a standardized form or URI loses
transcription, needed for identification.  Adding a URI (as opposed on
an XML marked up standardized form of the name) would not only be less
effort, but would allow both indexing and linking.


   __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
  {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________