LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST  June 2013

PCCLIST June 2013

Subject:

Re: References from initialisms

From:

Paul Robert Burley <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:15:15 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (383 lines)

-----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.*
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager