Hugh -
When I have had these situations, I have handled them as you outlined
below. Another variant on this issue is when the subordinate body is
entered independently. For example, look at the authority record for
"Sourisseau Academy for California State and Local
History""
110 2 Sourisseau Academy for California State and Local
History
410 2 California State University, San Jose. |b Sourisseau Academy
for California State and Local History
410 2 San Jose� State University. |b Sourisseau Academy for
California State and Local History
The name of the parent body changed although the name of the subordinate
body did not.
(By the way, there happens to already be a University of San Diego, as
well as a San Diego State University, and a San Diego City College, and
yes, they get mixed up by people not infrequently!)
Paul
At 2006/11/29 12:14 a, you wrote:
Paul,
In answer to your question: it would never occur to me NOT to create the
geographic NAR in that situation, so I agree with Pat and Caroline on
that.
Here's another one on which I'd welcome an "off the cuff"
reaction (won't take more than 60 seconds, I promise). Take the following
situation:
Let's imagine UCSD changes its name to, say,
University
of San Diego
1) So you establish a new NAR for USD and make reciprocal 5XXs between
the two. That much is clear. Very common, of course.
2) What about the Faculty of X. Should the "old" and
"new" NARs for this faculty also be linked with 5XXs?
110 UCSD.
Faculty of X
510 USD.
Faculty of X $w b
110 USD.
Faculty of X
510 UCSD.
Faculty of X $w a
3) And what, if at the time of the renaming to USD there's a wholesale
restructuring (not unheard of!) and UCSD's Faculty of X becomes USD's
Faculty of Y? Would you link the faculty NARs with 5XXs in this
situation?
110 UCSD.
Faculty of X
510 USD.
Faculty of Y $w b
110 USD.
Faculty of Y
510 UCSD.
Faculty of X $w a
If there's any documentation on this I've failed to find it (LCRIs would
be the most likely place). Precedent reveals examples of both approaches
(though finding examples is a bit hit and miss). Colleagues come up with
different answers...
I'd be interested to know what you would do in 2 and 3 above (simple
YES/NO would be welcome).
Hope all is well.
Best wishes,
Hugh
--
Hugh Taylor
Head, Collection Development and Description
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB3 9DR, England
email: [log in to unmask] fax: +44 (0)1223 333160
phone: +44 (0)1223 333069 (with voicemail) or
phone: +44 (0)1223 333000 (ask for pager 036)
Paul J. Weiss said - in whole or part - on 28/11/2006 20:34:
I was trying to write up for
local documentation here what the NACO requirements are for authority
records related to the primary one you are contributing. I was surprised
that I couldn't find a clear delineation of these in NACO policy
documents, especially in the DCM Z1 Introduction. Ana Cristan pointed me
to the About NACO document
(
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/naco/nacopara.html). (It is bizarre to
me that it's here; I definitely wouldn't have thought to look
there.)
One category that is not given in the list of 5 in that document is
conference locations. Somewhere along the way, I got it into my head that
we _were_ required to ensure that the location used in a conference
heading qualifier was represented in the authority file. (I know that for
"other" locations we use the language and form in the resource
being cataloged, but still thought that the location had to have an
authority record.) Do any of you remember that? Do any of you observe
such a requirement now?
Thanks,
Paul
_______________________________________
Paul J. Weiss
Catalog Librarian and NACO Coordinator
Metadata Services Department
UCSD Libraries
858-534-3537
[log in to unmask]
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
Paul J. Weiss
Catalog Librarian and NACO Coordinator
Metadata Services Department
UCSD Libraries
858-534-3537
_______________________________________