There is a typo in the revision proposal to 16.2.2.9.2 (both proposed
revision and clean copy):
Calyoquot Land District (B.C.)
should be
Clayoquot Land District (B.C.)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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 Mon, 13 Aug 2012, John Hostage wrote:
> The background information to the proposal (http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-19.pdf) explains why the optional
> addition was included. In a shared database like the LC/NACO authority file, policies would presumably be
> established concerning whether and when to apply the option. In a cooperative system, optional doesn't mean that
> everybody does whatever they want.
> Section 6 of the background makes it clear that larger places should be recorded as relationships to the place being
> established, but this would require a major revision of chapter 16, so it's a long-term goal.
>
> ------------------------------------------
> John Hostage
> Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian
> Langdell Hall
> Harvard Law School Library
> Cambridge, MA 02138
> [log in to unmask]
> +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
> +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
> http://www.law.harvard.edu/library/
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Nancy Sack [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2012 19:50
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] More RDA change proposals for consideration at the Nov. 2012 JSC meeting
>
> Hi, Kathy,
>
> I have a comment about part 4 of the 6JSC/ALA/19 proposal: Proposed Revision of RDA 16.2.2 (Preferred Name for the
> Place). Adding the name of the first-level administrative division before the name of the country in the preferred
> name for a place would split existing files unless an enormous amount of file maintenance were undertaken. Making
> the instruction optional would pretty much ensure that split files are perpetuated. Since the concept of "heading"
> is destined to become obsolete anyway, I think it makes more sense to record the first-level administrative division
> in a 37X field of the authority record (perhaps a new subfield in the 370 could be defined?). In a post-MARC,
> linked-data catalog-of-the-future, recording the first-level administrative division without changing the preferred
> form of the place name would help public services librarians (and everyone else) identify geographic locations and
> would not require updates to (tens of thousands of) existing authority and bibliographic records.
>
> Feel free to reword the comment as you wish and to forward or not as you see fit. I'd be interested in knowing what
> other PCC members think.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Nancy
>
>
> On 8/10/2012 7:06 AM, Kathy Glennan wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> CC:DA will need to respond to these proposals in advance of the November JSC meeting. While no specific
> deadlines have yet been established for CC:DA feedback, I suspect comments will be due no later than the
> end of September. I would be happy to forward any comments from PCC members for consideration.
>
>
>
>
>
> Please send your comments directly to me and not to the PCC list; I will contribute them to the CC:DA
> wiki. If you have an opportunity to comment on these papers through multiple CC:DA liaisons or voting
> members, please select just one of us to contribute on your behalf.
>
>
>
> Please contact me if you have any questions. I look forward to hearing your thoughts!
>
>
>
>
>
> Kathy Glennan
>
> PCC liaison to CC:DA
>
> Head, Special Resources Cataloging / Music Cataloger
>
> University of Maryland
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
> --
> Nancy Sack
> Cataloging Department
> University of Hawaii at Manoa
> 2550 McCarthy Mall
> Honolulu, HI 96822
> phone: 808-956-2648
> fax: 808-956-5968
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
>
|