-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 3:38 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] References from initialisms

As Kevin Randall pointed out, there are times when you HAVE to add a qualifier to the variant name to break a conflict with an authorized access point:

100 0 Sat
400 1 Provana, Roberto

110 2 Pisa International Airport
410 2 SAT (Airport)

110 2 San Antonio International Airport
410 2 SAT (San Antonio International Airport)

110 2 Asian Institute of Technology. $b School of Advanced Technologies
410 2 SAT (School of Advanced Technologies)

110 2 Sennacieca Asocio Tutmonda
410 2 SAT (Sennacieca Asocio Tutmonda)

110 2 Southern African AIDS Trust
410 2 SAT (Southern African AIDS Trust)


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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 Fri, 14 Jun 2013, Stanley Elswick - NOAA Federal wrote:

> I have to agree with Robert. For that matter, I don't see the use of
> qualifying any reference except by using a spelled-out version of the
> initialism. Since all references will point to a corporate body, the
> meaning to the user will become clear when they view the correct
> heading, so we don't need something explaining it to them.
>
> I think he makes a good argument for dispensing with qualifiers
> altogether, although I think using the spelled-out version as a
> qualifier might work as well.
>
> It works fine for topical headings such as:
>
> 150 Total quality management
> 450 Quality management, Total
> 450 TQM (Total quality management)
>
> For corporate names, I could see the utility of either of the following:
>
> 110 1 United States. ?b National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
> ?b Office of Ocean Exploration and Research
> 410 2 OER
>
> -or-
>
> 110 1 United States. ?b National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
> ?b Office of Ocean Exploration and Research
> 410 2 OER (Office of Ocean Exploration and Research)
>
> Note that the 2nd example does not simply repeat the 110, but it
> explains the reference nonetheless.
>
> I vote for using just the initialism, and using cataloger judgment on
> deciding whether to qualify with a spelled-out version (if we were voting).
> All else introduces ambiguity into the process.
>
> Stanley
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Robert Maxwell <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>> I think this is an overly restrictive interpretation of RDA 11.7.
>> RDA
>> 11.7.1.1 says ?other designation? is (b) ANY term that differentiates
>> the body from other entities; 11.7.1.4 simply says ?record a SUITABLE
>> designation?. It seems to me that the language of the instruction
>> leaves the choice of term completely wide open. I don?t see this
>> language forbidding in any way the suggestion of using a spelled out
>> form of the name to qualify an initialism.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> However, I don?t actually see the necessity of qualifying initialisms
>> recorded in 4XX fields at all and in fact I see disadvantages to the
>> practice. ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> The proposition that an initialism does not convey the idea of a
>> corporate body is very debatable in my opinion?UNICEF, UNESCO, and
>> IBM all convey the idea of corporate body to me, at least. In fact,
>> so many corporate bodies are known by initialisms, that seems to be
>> one of the hallmarks of a corporate name nowadays. If I saw an
>> unexplained initialism out of context, e.g. all alone on a bilboard
>> or in an ad, I would instantly assume it was the name of a corporate
>> body. So why do we think users wouldn?t realize an initialism stood
>> for a corporate body in the context of searches or displays within a
>> catalog?****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Further, past and current NACO practice allows variant names to
>> conflict with each other, so it doesn?t matter if various corporate
>> bodies have the same initialism recorded as 4XXs. Past practice has
>> been not to qualify them when recorded as variants. Starting now
>> means that users will sometimes find references from IBM under just
>> IBM, but newly established records will have IBM variants with
>> qualifiers?and these will be easily missed because they will be FAR
>> away from the basic ?IBM? reference (there are a LOT of IBM access
>> points). To me a better policy would be to agree NOT to qualify
>> initialisms in 4XX. That way they are all gathered together in one place and the user chooses which one he/she wants, as ?IBM?
>> currently displays in authorities.loc.gov:****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *INFORMATION FOR*: IBM. ****
>>
>> *Please note: Broader Terms are not currently available*****
>>
>> *Select a Link Below to Continue...*
>>
>> *Authority Record*****
>>
>> See: *Institut biologii mori?a? (Akademii?a? nauk SSSR)* ****
>>
>> See: *Institut biologii mori?a? (Rossii?skai?a? akademii?a? nauk)*
>> ****
>>
>> See: *Instituto de Biologia Mari?tima (Portugal)* ****
>>
>> See: *Instytut Budownictwa Mieszkaniowego (Poland)* ****
>>
>> See: *International Business Machines Corporation.*****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> We?re making it harder on our users if we insist on their going and
>> looking for ?IBM (Programme)? or whatever to find the one they want
>> instead of just ?IBM?, which is the form they will have found and
>> will be looking
>> for.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Bob****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Robert L. Maxwell
>> Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
>> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
>> Brigham Young University
>> Provo, UT 84602
>> (801)422-5568
>>
>> "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine
>> ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R.
>> Snow, 1842.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:
>> [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Culbertson, Rebecca
>> *Sent:* Friday, June 14, 2013 10:45 AM
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* Re: References from initialisms****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Why don?t we send this through JSC as a proposed change? This gives
>> instant corroboration to the patron that this is the body they are seeking.
>> ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Becky Culbertson****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Moore, Richard
>> *Sent:* Friday, June 14, 2013 9:25 AM
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] References from initialisms****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Diane****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Unfortunately, I don't think the spelled out form of a body's name
>> falls within the scope of 11.7.1.4.****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> 11.7.1 defines "Other designation associated with the corporate body"
>> as:*
>> ***
>>
>> ****
>>
>> "a) a word, phrase, or abbreviation that indicates incorporation or
>> legal status of a corporate body****
>>
>> or****
>>
>> b) any term that differentiates the body from other corporate
>> bodies, persons, etc."****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> 11.7.1.4 has examples of the latter, that are used when the name does
>> not convey the idea of a corporate body, but all are terms for the
>> kind of thing the body is: Program, Firm, Organisation. I think
>> that's what's meant by "Other designation".****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> The name in the 410 is not an "Other Designation" but a "Variant
>> Name for the Corporate Body" (11.2.3). There is no instruction that
>> allows you to use a variant name as a qualifer in a preferred name,
>> or vice versa. So I don't think either a 110 or a 410 in the form
>> "BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation" is actually allowed in RDA,
>> more's the pity. ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Regards****
>>
>> Richard****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Richard Moore****
>>
>> Authority Control Team Manager****
>>
>> The British Library****
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging on behalf of Boehr, Diane
>> (NIH/NLM) [E]
>> *Sent:* Thu 13/06/2013 20:36
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] References from initialisms****
>>
>> I am seeing other libraries using the full form of the name as the
>> qualifier, which seems like a good idea. ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Diane ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Diane Boehr****
>>
>> Head of Cataloging****
>>
>> National Library of Medicine****
>>
>> 8600 Rockville Pike, MS3823****
>>
>> Bethesda, MD 20894****
>>
>> 301-435-7059 (voice)****
>>
>> 301-402-1211 (fax)****
>>
>> [log in to unmask]****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> *From:* Paiste, Marsha S.
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>]
>>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:58 AM
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] References from initialisms****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> In view of Paul Franks? clear message regarding initialisms, I wonder
>> if there is a list of acceptable qualifiers. I am currently
>> creating an authority record for the Boston School of Occupational
>> Therapy or BSOT. It was founding during the WWI for high school and
>> college graduates to receive professional education. (Later it
>> joined with Tufts University, so a second record will be created for
>> that form of name.) ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Can I use 410 BSOT (Professional school) and 410 B.S.O.T.
>> (Professional school)? Is there a better qualifier?****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Thanks****
>>
>> Marsha****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> *********************************************************************
>> *****
>> ****
>>
>> Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> The British Library?s latest Annual Report and Accounts :
>> www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book.
>> www.bl.uk/adoptabook****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> *********************************************************************
>> *****
>> ***
>>
>> ****
>>
>> The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be
>> legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you
>> are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify
>> the [log in to unmask] : The contents of this e-mail must not be
>> disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of
>> the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British
>> Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the
>> views of the author. ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> *********************************************************************
>> ****
>> ****
>>
>> Think before you print****
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Stanley Elswick
> NOAA Central Library
> 301.713.2607 x138
>
> *The content of this msg., unless stated explicity otherwise, reflects
> only my personal views and not the views of the U.S. Government.*
>