Here's a fast track revision that was part of the February 2015 update to the RDA Toolkit (found on page 7 of http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-Sec-14.pdf). The second sentence is the new one added to this instruction:
Record the type of corporate body in a language preferred by the agency creating the data. Select terms from a standard list of names of types of corporate body, if available. If there is no equivalent term for the type of corporate body in a language preferred by the agency, or in case of doubt, record the type of corporate body in the official language of the corporate body.
This is the first time I think in RDA that it refers to a controlled list of terms to be recorded as an attribute, other than the instructions on recording language of a person/family/corporate body or expression, and the script(s) used to express the language content (184.108.40.206, 220.127.116.11, 10.8.1.3, 18.104.22.168, and 22.214.171.124). I don't know why type of corporate body gets this additional instruction to use a standard list of terms but not profession/occupation and field of activity.
On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, Stephen Hearn wrote:
> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 14:11:29 -0600
> From: Stephen Hearn <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Best practices in updating authority records
> Maybe I'm overreading it, but RDA does specify "Profession or Occupation"
> as a type of term appropriate for distinguishing one person from another.
> To me, this implies an expectation, or at least an option, that the term
> will be categorized as indicating a profession or occupation. MARC
> authorities accommodate that by providing the 374 field where the RDA
> category is expressed in the tag value. I can imagine other ways a term
> could be categorized, including a term added only to an authorized access
> point; and but MARC is what we use. I agree that RDA does not require this
> kind of categorization; but it does encourage us to make it possble. If RDA
> did not intend to distinguish different qualifying information by
> categories, then I'm not sure why the 3XX "RDA fields" were added to the
> authority format.
> What is missing from RDA itself is any instruction to use controlled
> vocabularies to express the attributes of persons. That comes from PCC.
> I'm all for using controlled vocabularies; but I can also see a case for
> using the 374 to categorize an uncontrolled term which appears in a 100 $c.
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Adam L. Schiff <[log in to unmask]>
>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, Kevin M Randall wrote:
>> And if we want to use a controlled vocabulary, the only agreed-upon one
>>> for the PCC is LCSH.
>> On this, I must respectfully but forcefully disagree, Kevin. The DCM Z1
>> does not say we should use LCSH. For example for field 374 it says:
>> "Prefer controlled vocabulary, such as LCSH or Me
>> SH, recording the source in subfield $2." For 372 it says: "When
>> recording a term indicating the field, prefer controlled vocabulary, such
>> as LCSH or MeSH, recording the source in subfield $2." For 368 it says:
>> "Prefer controlled vocabulary for terms, recording the source in subfield
>> LCSH happens to be the easiest controlled vocabulary for most of us to
>> use, because it is easy to search in the utilities, and it is quite
>> familiar since many of us use it for assigning subject headings. But it is
>> not a mandated vocabulary to use and certainly not the only agreed-upon one
>> for PCC.
>> 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]
> Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
> Data Management & Access, University Libraries
> University of Minnesota
> 160 Wilson Library
> 309 19th Avenue South
> Minneapolis, MN 55455
> Ph: 612-625-2328
> Fx: 612-625-3428
> ORCID: 0000-0002-3590-1242
Adam L. Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 685-8782 fax
[log in to unmask]