Re-opening only to amend: Personal name headings distinguished by birth/death dates, are, of course, frequently useful to patrons and information seekers, especially for relatively common names where a date range can offer a place to start winnowing the index. Corporate name headings and SARs, not so much. CW ----- Original Message ----- From: "CHRISTOPHER WALKER" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 9:53:26 AM Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] undifferentiated corporate name authorities I can't agree with my distinguished colleague (Hi, Kevin!). I am having trouble imagining any scenario under which any patron or information seeker will find it useful to encounter separate headings that recognize a distinction between otherwise identical headings that have the same corporate subordination. We seem to be headed into an era when the master authority record will be expected to evolve into an encyclopedia entry presenting all sorts of information that is not essential for distinguishing similar names (such as the gender associated with a personal name, or geographical associations that change during a person's career). When I was NACO-trained, the impulse to do that was beaten out of me, but so be it. In an RDA-inflected file, maintaining two separate headings for South Dakota's Department of [Topic] seems unreasonable. Notes could convey the date information. Users have always been confused by authorized access points that include dates. In my view, strenuous care should be taken to find some other solution, any other solution, to distinguish otherwise identical headings. The idea that such headings might proliferate under the new code is profoundly depressing. Christopher H. Walker Serials Cataloging Librarian Penn State's representative to the CONSER Operations Committee Chair, Ulrichs Serials Librarianship Award Jury, 2011/2012 126 Paterno Library The Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802-1812 (814) 865-4212 [log in to unmask] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin M Randall" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 7:32:20 PM Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] undifferentiated corporate name authorities Care must be taken not to confuse two different kinds of situations: 1. One corporate body has changed its name, taking up a name that it has used itself at a previous time 2. Two or more different corporate bodies have used the same name In the case of South Dakota Department of Public Safety, these are two different bodies, one of which was created in 1973 and abolished in 1984, the other of which was created in 2003. It would be incorrect to use the same heading for the two different bodies. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Bibliographic Services Dept. Northwestern University Library 1970 Campus Drive Evanston, IL 60208-2300 email: [log in to unmask] phone: (847) 491-2939 fax: (847) 491-4345 > -----Original Message----- > From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn > Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 4:29 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: [PCCLIST] undifferentiated corporate name authorities > > RDA 11.13.1.5 says that when constructing access points for corporate > bodies, "If the name has been used by two or more bodies that cannot be > distinguished by place or associated institution, add a date or dates > associated with the body." It includes in the examples: > > South Dakota. Department of Public Safety (1973-1984) > South Dakota. Department of Public Safety (2003- ) > > There's no LCPS comment. > > AACR2 practice as codified in LAC RI (not discussed in LCRI) generally > used a single authority in such cases: "If a change in name results in the > resumption of an earlier form of name used by the same body, and a > heading has already been established for that name, do not establish a > new heading. Revise explanatory and other references as required, and > use the previously established name as the heading for new publications > issued under that same name." (LAC RI 24.1C) > > Our case in point is the "New Brunswick. Dept. of Fisheries," name used > 1963-1971, 1975-1988, and 2006-2010. Currently the first two intervals are > represented by a single AACR2/DLC authority and the third interval could > be added to it; but these all would presumably need to be distributed into > three date-qualified authorities for RDA. > > Should all three RDA authorities be new and the AACR2 authority be > deleted, since none of the new authorized access points will be co- > extensive with what's represented by the AACR2 heading, or should the > existing authority record be revised to become one of the RDA > authorities? > > Should a 667 note or some other indication be added to the RDA > authorities explain the difference between the AACR2 and RDA > treatments of the name and what it represents? > > Thanks, > > Stephen > > > -- > > Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist > Technical Services, University Libraries > University of Minnesota > 160 Wilson Library > 309 19th Avenue South > Minneapolis, MN 55455 > Ph: 612-625-2328