Re-opening only to note that the case that began this conversation does not reflect a change from AACR2 to RDA. The two South Dakota headings used as examples at RDA are drawn from the NACO authority file where they have lived happily and unmolested since November 2004 as bona fide AACR2 name authority records, presumably because they were deemed to be covered by AACR2 24.5C6. The only effect of RDA will be to spell out "Dept."

Ed Jones
National University (San Diego, Calif.)

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of CHRISTOPHER WALKER
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 7:56 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] undifferentiated corporate name authorities

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. 


----- 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 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