One thing to point out however (and this is something that it seems many 
people have missed when creating ongoing conference, exhibition, festival, 
etc. access points, even in AACR2): if the event is always held in the 
same place, the place should not be omitted from the access point for an 
ongoing conference.

AACR2 24.7B4: "If the heading is for a series of conferences, etc., do not 
add the location unless all were held in the same place."

24.8B1: "As instructed in 24.7B, add to the name of an exhibition, fair, 
festival, etc., its number, date, and location."

(Although in AACR2 the location was omitted as an addition if it was 
already in the name of the corporate confereence, exhibition, etc.)

RDA 11.13.1.8:

"Add to the name of a conference, etc. (including that of a conference 
recorded subordinately, see 11.2.2.14), if applicable and readily 
ascertainable (in this order:)

a) the number of the conference, etc. (see 11.6)
b) the date of the conference, etc. (see 11.4.2)
c) the location of the conference, etc. (see 11.3.2).

If the access point represents a series of conferences, etc., do not add 
the location unless all the conferences in the series were held in the 
same place."


Based on this, we have the following authorized access points for ongoing 
events:

111 2_ Bumbershoot (Festival) $c (Seattle, Wash.)

111 2_ Blue Ridge Folklife Festival $c (Ferrum, Va.)

111 2_ Toronto International Film Festival $c (Toronto, Ont.)

and so on.

I think catalogers don't remember that the local place should be included 
in the access point for an ongoing conference, fair, festival, etc. when 
the event is held in the same place each time, and when they do remember 
to include they often don't realize that the local place name needs to be 
put in subfield $c rather than just added as a qualifier in subfield $a.

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 Wed, 3 Oct 2012, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:

> I cannot speak to what PoCo has decided based on our recommendations.
>
> What we recommended was that "individual" ARs be established whenever necessary (i.e. when cataloging a one-time conference, or a new edition of an ongoing conference); whereas "collective" ARs only have to be established if (a) an ongoing conference is being cataloged as a serial; or (b) if you are recording a change in the name of the conference, in which case "collective" ARs are required to host the earlier and later name cross-references.
>
> That said, we suggested that a "best practice" might be always to create the collective AR for ongoing conferences (which, we pointed out, can usually be done by deriving a new record from the individual conference AR and removing the $n, $d, and $c from the heading... you would also have to remove any RDA information fields that relate to an individual meeting instead of the conference series as a whole.)  It doesn't seem as if "collective" ARs would hurt the file even if they are not strictly speaking necessary.
>
> IIRC we did not all agree on this (always creating a collective AR when a conference is ongoing) enough to recommend it as an LC/PCC-PS, but for my part I think it's simpler just to ask, "Is this conference ongoing or one-time" and act based on the answer to that question; rather than to ask, "Is this conference ongoing ... and does it either need a 5xx, or is it being used for a serial record?"
>
>
>
> Benjamin Abrahamse
> Cataloging Coordinator
> Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
> MIT Libraries
> 617-253-7137
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jenifer K Marquardt
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 12:49 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Changing Ongoing Conference NAR's-problem
>
> The ongoing conference heading is still needed, also, for instances where it supports a serial treatment of conference proceedings.  So there should still be times when new ongoing headings will be created, right?
>
> Jenifer
>
> Jenifer K. Marquardt
> Asst. Head of Cataloging & Authorities Librarian University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602-1641
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Benjamin A Abrahamse [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 12:22 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Changing Ongoing Conference NAR's-problem
>
> As someone who had the great good fortune to be part of the PCC Task Group to Formulate or Recommend PCC/NACO RDA Policy on Authority Issues, where the issue of headings for ongoing conferences was something we spent a fair amount of time discussing, I'd just like to support Dave Reser's point.  One of the main reasons we recommended two types of headings--collective and individual--for ongoing conferences is to move away from the AACR2/LCRI practice of converting existing "one-time" conference NARs into "ongoing" conference NARs, which always resulted in removing data from the controlled access point, and some cases from the record altogether.
>
> --Ben
>
> Benjamin Abrahamse
> Cataloging Coordinator
> Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries
> 617-253-7137
>
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Reser, Dave
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 6:06 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Changing Ongoing Conference NAR's-problem
>
> Colleagues,
>
> Richard, Ian, Mary Charles, and Gary are all making an important point-- don't re-use a record for one entity (or group of entities) for a different entity.  We fairly regularly (although not recently) plead with folks not to 're-use' LCCNs, which has the same adverse impact.
>
> I'd also like to note that the PCC policies for ongoing conferences (whether an individual instance, or collective treatment) recommended by the PCC Task Group to Formulate or Recommend PCC/NACO RDA Policy on Authority Issues will be published in the October 9 release of the RDA Toolkit as the LC-PCC PS* for 11.13.1.8, I'm sure other documentation and training materials will be updated in turn.
>
> Thanks again to all for the reminder,
>
> Dave Reser
> LC PSD
> *Yes, the former Library of Congress Policy Statements will be re-branded as the LC-PCC Policy Statements in the October release of the RDA Toolkit;  the task of getting the "PCC practice" lables recorded in all appropriate places is still ongoing, but the name change will soon be live!
>
>
>
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 4:49 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Changing Ongoing Conference NAR's-problem
>
> Ian
>
> When creating RDA NARs on LC/NAF for an ongoing conference, NARs are created both representing the series of conferences as a whole (the collective NAR), and for the individaul instances of the conference (the individual NARs).
>
> Any information based on AACR2 and LCRIs is obsolete in this context - though I guess it is still OK to create AACR2 style NARs until next March - which will correspond to RDA collective NARs.
>
> It will cause confusion if people change existing AACR2 "collective" NARs to become RDA "individual NARs". Makes more sense to create the individual NARs as new NARs.
>
> Regards
> Richard
>
> Richard Moore
> Authority Control Team Manager
> The British Library
>
> ________________________________
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging on behalf of Ian Fairclough
> Sent: Tue 02/10/2012 20:44
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: [PCCLIST] Changing Ongoing Conference NAR's-problem PCCLIST readers,
>
> Two NARs are now extant for the conference "Conference on Stably Stratified Flows" with which Mary Charles Lasater initiated this e-mail thread.  One was originally created for the ongoing series, then changed to represent just the fifth (in the process, merging two NARs and updating to RDA).  One was originally created to represent just the fourth.  Perhaps the one representing just the fourth should not have been created according to AACR2 NACO practice (below) but is now what is required in RDA.
>
> Recently I used OCLC's macro for creating a NAR, and it created one for the ongoing series.  In the bib record, I added data for the individual conference (number, year, place) and controlled the heading.
>
> The document NACO Training for OCLC Libraries (April 2010), available here http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/courses/naco/pdf/training_manuals/2010_Trainees_Manual.pdf
> has on p. 3-57 this information:
>
> Conferences : Ongoing
> $a subfield: place or date
> * Omit number and frequency words from name of conference (e.g. second, annual, etc.) Bibliographic record:
> * Always add number ($n), date ($d), and place ($c) in bibliographic access point, if available Name authority record:
> * Do not add any qualifier in NAR
> * If a conflict exists, add appropriate qualifier in 111
> AACR2 & LCRI 24.7B
>
> Is this information now obsolete?  Under RDA, I understand that all NARs are required to have qualifying information. (Note: I have not yet received RDA training for NACO - please correct if necessary.)  So there will be no more NARs for ongoing series, just for individual conferences.  Is this correct?  Surely new NARs need to be created in all cases, as Mary Charles originally said.  But if this is not widely understood, the consequences can cause a minor havoc.  - Ian
>
> Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>