LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCTG1 Archives


PCCTG1 Archives

PCCTG1 Archives


PCCTG1@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

PCCTG1 Home

PCCTG1 Home

PCCTG1  August 2013

PCCTG1 August 2013

Subject:

Re: CCM 18: Corporate names: additions in the absence of conflict

From:

CHRISTOPHER WALKER <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 13 Aug 2013 12:35:53 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (123 lines)

Colleagues, 

Just want to add that it makes me happy if any heading that contains the 
English, French, or Spanish word for "national" is qualified by the name 
of the jurisdiction. 

I'm afraid I don't care a fig what rule or instruction requires or encourages the addition. 


Christopher H. Walker 
Serials Cataloging Librarian 
Penn State's representative to the CONSER Operations Committee
Member at Large, ALCTS CRS Executive Committee 2013/2016 
126 Paterno Library 
The Pennsylvania State University 
University Park, PA 16802-1812 
(814) 865-4212 
[log in to unmask]
 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mary Jane Cuneo" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 11:51:10 AM
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] CCM 18: Corporate names: additions in the absence of conflict


Yes, it would be a big change. I’m happy for now just to get the idea out there. 

mjc 


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ed Jones 
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 11:42 AM 
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] CCM 18: Corporate names: additions in the absence of conflict 

Thanks, Mary Jane. I’m hesitant to do any major overhaul of module 18 aside from making sure it conforms to current practice. I think such an overhaul might be very valuable down the road, but it would be best undertaken when it can be evaluated in the context of a CCM that has already been brought up to date. (Also it would be going beyond the charge.) 

If I receive no objections, I think I’ll revise categories c and d under 18.6.2 to emphasize cataloger judgment in the context of the optional additions at the various RDA instructions. 

Ed 


Ed Jones 
Associate Director, Assessment and Technical Services 
National University Library 
9393 Lightwave Avenue 
San Diego, California 92123-1447 
+1 858 541 7920 (voice) 
http://national.academia.edu/EdJones 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [ mailto:[log in to unmask] ] On Behalf Of Cuneo, Mary Jane 
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 8:04 AM 
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] CCM 18: Corporate names: additions in the absence of conflict 

Hi Ed, 

(1) I think the additions still may be made—under the Optional Addition for 11.13.1.3 where “Place” seems to include jurisdiction—RDA just simplifies by leaving off all the guidance about government bodies, institutions, distinctive words and proper nouns. It’s just “add if you think it helps.” (Is this a good thing? I’m not sure. We’ll know better after we’ve all been working with it for a while! At which time we may sneak some of the guidance back in, with policy statements … ) 

I think it’s interesting that RDA instructs us to add a qualifier when the name is the same or similar to another. The latter is a judgment call, and it makes a blurry border between required qualifiers and qualifiers that are added because they seem helpful. 

(2) The distinction has always been a head-scratcher for me. 

(3) Yes, I think these would be last-resort additions. The additions referred to in CCM 18.6.2 now seem to be covered in RDA 11.13.1.3, and would be deployed first. 


How about that bad link (to the wrong policy statement)! 

Your questions got me looking at Module 18, which I had never visited before, and I wonder about it. Much of the content summarizes info from NACO documentation, which is spread around. Though it’s handy to have such a summary and examples, it does want to be kept up to date as RDA instructions and PCC policies evolve—otherwise people will be misled. Does CONSER want that task? Though I only looked at it quickly, the BIBCO manual doesn’t seem to have an analogous section—it just refers to the various NACO documents. (BIBCO C.1, D.2, D5) Would it be worthwhile to pare Module 18 down to just those points having to do with name authorities and CONSER cataloging, and then refer to the basic NACO documents for the rest? 

There’s no NACO Manual (the NACO Participants’ Manual is now out of date and it never was comprehensive) maybe because there is no NACO structure within PCC like there is for CONSER, BIBCO and SACO(??) But that’s another thing entirely. 


Mary Jane Cuneo 
Serials cataloging and NACO 
Information and Technical Services 
Harvard Library 




From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ed Jones 
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 3:33 PM 
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: [PCCTG1] CCM 18: Corporate names: additions in the absence of conflict 



Module 18 includes at 18.6.2 two categories (c and d) that receive parenthetical additions even in the absence of conflict: 

c. Any government body (other than an institution) that is entered directly under its own name [goes on to clarify “government body” and “institution”] 

d. Any other corporate body entered under its own name [when the addition will “assist in the understanding of the nature or purpose of the body”] 


There are optional additions at RDA 11.13.1.3-5 and 7 that allow augmenting a name in certain circumstances even in the absence of conflict, but none of these have any associated LC-PCC PS. (There is a link to a nonexistent PS at 11.13.1.7.) 


Also, the additions covered by category d in Module 18 differ from those made under RDA 11.13.1.7, though they share the same description (additions that will assist in the understanding of the nature or purpose of the body). See especially the examples under cataegory d and at RDA 11.13.1.7 



Three questions: 

(1) Are these additions no longer made under RDA? 

(2) If they are still made, are the distinctions between categories c and d justified? 

(3) If they are still made, are the additions that are covered by RDA 11.13.1.7 made? 


Ed 


Ed Jones 
Associate Director, Assessment and Technical Services 
National University Library 
9393 Lightwave Avenue 
San Diego, California 92123-1447 
http://national.academia.edu/EdJones 

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

February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
August 2019
July 2019
May 2019
April 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
October 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
December 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
June 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
July 2000

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager