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.*
>