Just curious ... in other cases where state/province is used as the qualifier, the heading is [local place] ([state]), omitting the country. I can see why including China in the heading would be helpful, but I wonder how you envision indirect subdivision working for these headings. Would it be $z China $z Province $z Local Place or something else? And would using three subdivisions for Chinese headings, but not for other countries where headings are qualified by state/province be problematic or not?

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Deng, Shi [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 9:33 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] CEAL Survey on RDA Change Proposal on Geographical Names in China

[Message being cross-posted; please excuse the duplication, and also feel free to forward to other interested parties.]

Dear all,

The Committee on Technical Processing of the Council on East Asian Libraries (CEAL) is conducting a survey to solicit input from CEAL community on a tentative proposal the Committee is working on with regard to the form of Chinese geographical names used in bibliographic records. The Committee would  like to solicit input from you as well.

Under current AACR2 rules, place names in China below the provincial level are entered directly with the qualifier “(China).” The name of province is not included in the qualifier unless there is another place with the same Romanized name exists in a different province. The new cataloging code RDA will have the same rule unless a proposal for change is filed and accepted.

Because of the size of its territory as well as the large number of provinces in China, it’s often difficult for users to identify the exact location of a place without the name of the province. For the same reason, it also takes longer for catalogers to establish and/or assign subject headings.

The Committee would like to propose that all Chinese geographical names under provincial level be established with “([Province], China)" as a qualifier regardless of whether there is a conflict with another name or not. We believe that this change will be very helpful for both catalogers as well as reference staff in providing better services to users.

For example:

Current practice:                         Proposed practice:
Wuhan Shi (China)                       Wuhan Shi (Hubei Sheng, China)
Shangrao Diqu (China)                 Shangrao Diqu (Jiangxi Sheng, China)

Your input will be extremely important for us to determine if such a proposal is well supported and worth pursuing. Therefore, please take a few minutes to answer some simple questions listed in the survey:

Thank you very much for your help!


Shi Deng
Chair, CEAL Committee on Technical Processing

UCSD Libraries
[log in to unmask]