Diane and others following this thread,

 

The statement you found in LC-PCC PS 11.7.1.4 under Ships:

 

"Update existing authorized access points not formulated according to these guidelines only when needing to resolve a conflict."  

 

does apply to all AACR2 headings that consist of upper-case initialisms or acronyms.

 

The sentence will be moved to a more prominent location in the same LC-PCC PS in the November 2013 update, but the statement is applicable now to all AACR2 headings consisting of unqualified upper-case initialisms or acronyms that are candidates for re-coding to RDA.

 

The exact wording of the statement will be approved by the Standing Committee on Standards; the spirit of the statement is based on LCRI 24.4B, which originally set the policy under AACR2:

 

"Pre-1981 Headings

Headings originally established before January 1981 that fell into either of the two categories listed below were coded "AACR2" prior to September 1982.  Continue to use the existing form of the established heading in post-August 1982 cataloging.  (Headings coded after August 1982 are in accord with AACR2 and current LC policy.)

2)  The heading lacked a qualifier that would be needed according to current policy.

110 2# $a BFA Educational Media

(Do not change to:  BFA Educational Media (Firm))"

 

*******

 

To re-cap the other issues raised in this thread:

 

LC-PCC PS 11.7.1.4 requires the addition of a qualifier to an authorized access point consisting of an initialism or acronym written in all capital letters (with or without periods between them).

 

Note that this is an explicit instruction in an LC-PCC PS, not an instruction in RDA. 

 

RDA 11.2.3.5 discusses variant access points when the preferred name for a corporate body is a full form of the name:

 

“If the preferred name for the corporate body is a full form of the name, record an acronym, initialism, or abbreviated form of the name as a variant name.”

 

The same instructions used when creating an authorized access point (RDA 11.13.1.2-11.13.1.8) are applied when creating a variant access point, so a variant consisting of an initialism or acronym written in all capital letters (with or without periods between them) would also be qualified according to LC-PCC PS 11.7.1.4.

 

NACO Normalization policies need to be followed in all cases.  

 

RDA 11.2.3.5 continues:

 

“If the preferred name consists of an acronym or initialism, it is recorded with or without full stops according to the instructions at 11.2.2.7. If the presence or absence of full stops affects access, record the form not chosen as the preferred name as a variant name.

 

There is no corresponding LC-PCC PS for this RDA instruction.

 

Variant access points are not CORE in RDA, so there is no requirement to add them. But if you do add one in this situation, the instruction in RDA 11.2.3.5 is used as a guide: if the presence or absence of full stops affects access, you can add a variant access point for the form not chosen as the preferred name, regardless of the presence or absence of full stops in the usage of the body’s names in the resource being cataloged.

 

Existing references in AACR2 records being re-coded to RDA do not need to be changed, as long as NACO Normalization policies are not violated.

 

Paul

 

Paul Frank

Acting Coordinator, NACO and SACO Programs

Cooperative Programs Section

Cooperative and Instructional Programs Division

Library of Congress

101 Independence Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20540-4230

202-707-1570

[log in to unmask]

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Boehr, Diane (NIH/NLM) [E]
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 12:11 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] References from initialisms

 

Having scrolled down a lot further in LC-PCC PS 11.7.1.4 (the one that says to add a qualifier to an initialisms chosen as an AAP), I found the following statement which would support the idea that we can leave existing records alone, whether they are RDA or AACR2: “Update existing authorized access points not formulated according to these guidelines only when needing to resolve a conflict.”

 

However, since this instruction follows specific instructions about qualifiers for sailing vessels we were uncertain if it applied to the LCC-PC PS as a whole or only to sailing vessels.  Can someone from LC please clarify whether we can apply this guidance broadly or just to sailing vessels?

 

Diane

 

Diane Boehr

Head of Cataloging

National Library of Medicine

8600 Rockville Pike, MS3823

Bethesda, MD 20894

301-435-7059 (voice)

301-402-1211 (fax)

[log in to unmask]

 

 

 

From: Mark K. Ehlert [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:53 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] References from initialisms

 

Amy Turner <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I think that this is covered by the basic principle of not changing an authorized heading unless there is an error.    


Balanced, it seems, with the points made here (especially the 2nd section on existing records):
<http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/PCC%20Post%20RDA%20Test%20Guidelines.html>


--
Mark K. Ehlert                 Minitex
Coordinator                    University of Minnesota
Digitization, Cataloging &     15 Andersen Library

  Metadata Education (DCME)    222 21st Avenue South
Phone: 612-624-0805            Minneapolis, MN 55455-0439
<
http://www.minitex.umn.edu/>