Actually, I don't think that's true. We have always understood that the geographic qualifier should be appropriate to the nature of the body. RDA 220.127.116.11: "If a body has a character that is national, state, provincial, etc., record the name of the country, state, province, etc., in which it is located." "For other bodies, record the name of the local place that is commonly associated with the name of the body, whether it is a jurisdiction or not." This latter instruction is usually applied to schools and other institutions.
Of course, a school can sometimes move, and we have instructions for dealing with that: LC-PCC PS for 18.104.22.168.
Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian //
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services //
Langdell Hall 194 //
Cambridge, MA 02138
[log in to unmask]
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
> -----Original Message-----
> It's really not necessary to defend the use of a general qualifier. We have
> always understood that one should use the simplest qualifier that is
> sufficient to identify or differentiate a body (e.g. "Pa."). One changes it to
> something more specific if it becomes necessary, not the other way around.