Print

Print


I will note that most of those references use a spelled-out version of the initialism. �And, you know, the one that doesn't do that tells the user much less than the ones that do.

As a user I would not want to see just "Airport", I would want to know which airport.




On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Adam L. Schiff <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
As Kevin Randall pointed out, there are times when you HAVE to add a qualifier to the variant name to break a conflict with an authorized access point:

100 0 �Sat
400 1 �Provana, Roberto

110 2 �Pisa International Airport
410 2 �SAT (Airport)

110 2 �San Antonio International Airport
410 2 �SAT (San Antonio International Airport)

110 2 �Asian Institute of Technology. $b School of Advanced Technologies
410 2 �SAT (School of Advanced Technologies)

110 2 �Sennacieca Asocio Tutmonda
410 2 �SAT (Sennacieca Asocio Tutmonda)

110 2 �Southern African AIDS Trust
410 2 �SAT (Southern African AIDS Trust)


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782�fax
[log in to unmask]
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


On Fri, 14 Jun 2013, Stanley Elswick - NOAA Federal wrote:

I have to agree with Robert. �For that matter, I don't see the use of
qualifying any reference except by using a spelled-out version of the
initialism. �Since all references will point to a corporate body, the
meaning to the user will become clear when they view the correct heading,
so we don't need something explaining it to them.

I think he makes a good argument for dispensing with qualifiers altogether,
although I think using the spelled-out version as a qualifier might work as
well.

It works fine for topical headings such as:

150 � Total quality management
450 �Quality management, Total
450 �TQM (Total quality management)

For corporate names, I could see the utility of either of the following:

110 1 �United States. ?b National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
?b Office of Ocean Exploration and Research
410 2 OER

-or-

110 1 �United States. ?b National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
?b Office of Ocean Exploration and Research
410 2 �OER (Office of Ocean Exploration and Research)

Note that the 2nd example does not simply repeat the 110, but it explains
the reference nonetheless.

I vote for using just the initialism, and using cataloger judgment on
deciding whether to qualify with a spelled-out version (if we were voting).
All else introduces ambiguity into the process.

Stanley




On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Robert Maxwell <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

�I think this is an overly restrictive interpretation of RDA 11.7. RDA
11.7.1.1 says ?other designation? is (b) ANY term that differentiates the
body from other entities; 11.7.1.4 simply says ?record a SUITABLE
designation?. It seems to me that the language of the instruction leaves
the choice of term completely wide open. I don?t see this language

forbidding in any way the suggestion of using a spelled out form of the
name to qualify an initialism.****

** **

However, I don?t actually see the necessity of qualifying initialisms

recorded in 4XX fields at all and in fact I see disadvantages to the
practice. ****

** **


The proposition that an initialism does not convey the idea of a corporate
body is very debatable in my opinion?UNICEF, UNESCO, and IBM all convey the

idea of corporate body to me, at least. In fact, so many corporate bodies
are known by initialisms, that seems to be one of the hallmarks of a
corporate name nowadays. If I saw an unexplained initialism out of context,
e.g. all alone on a bilboard or in an ad, I would instantly assume it was
the name of a corporate body. So why do we think users wouldn?t realize an

initialism stood for a corporate body in the context of searches or
displays within a catalog?****

** **


Further, past and current NACO practice allows variant names to conflict
with each other, so it doesn?t matter if various corporate bodies have the

same initialism recorded as 4XXs. Past practice has been not to qualify
them when recorded as variants. Starting now means that users will
sometimes find references from IBM under just IBM, but newly established
records will have IBM variants with qualifiers?and these will be easily
missed because they will be FAR away from the basic ?IBM? reference (there

are a LOT of IBM access points). To me a better policy would be to agree
NOT to qualify initialisms in 4XX. That way they are all gathered together
in one place and the user chooses which one he/she wants, as ?IBM?
currently displays in authorities.loc.gov:****

** **

*INFORMATION FOR*: IBM. ****

*Please note: Broader Terms are not currently available*****

*Select a Link Below to Continue...*

*Authority Record*****

See: �*Institut biologii mori?a? (Akademii?a? nauk SSSR)* ****

See: �*Institut biologii mori?a? (Rossii?skai?a? akademii?a? nauk)* ****

See: �*Instituto de Biologia Mari?tima (Portugal)* ****

See: �*Instytut Budownictwa Mieszkaniowego (Poland)* ****

See: �*International Business Machines Corporation.*****

** **

** **

We?re making it harder on our users if we insist on their going and
looking for ?IBM (Programme)? or whatever to find the one they want instead
of just ?IBM?, which is the form they will have found and will be looking
for.****

** **

Bob****

** **


Robert L. Maxwell
Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves
to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.****

** **

*From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:
[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Culbertson, Rebecca
*Sent:* Friday, June 14, 2013 10:45 AM
*To:* [log in to unmask]
*Subject:* Re: References from initialisms****

** **

Why don?t we send this through JSC as a proposed change? �This gives

instant corroboration to the patron that this is the body they are seeking.
****

** **

Becky Culbertson****

** **

*From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging
[mailto:[log in to unmask]GOV] *On Behalf Of *Moore, Richard
*Sent:* Friday, June 14, 2013 9:25 AM
*To:* [log in to unmask]
*Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] References from initialisms****

** **

Diane****

�****


Unfortunately, I don't think the spelled out form of a body's name falls
within the scope of 11.7.1.4.****

�****

11.7.1 defines "Other designation associated with the corporate body" as:*
***

�****


"a) a word, phrase, or abbreviation that indicates incorporation or legal
status of a corporate body****

or****


�b) any term that differentiates the body from other corporate bodies,
persons, etc."****

�****


11.7.1.4 has examples of the latter, that are used when the name does not
convey the idea of a corporate body, but all are terms for the kind of
thing the body is: Program, Firm, Organisation. I think that's what's meant
by "Other designation".****

�****


The name in the 410 is �not an "Other Designation" but a "Variant Name for
the Corporate Body" (11.2.3). There is no instruction that allows you to
use a variant name as a qualifer in a preferred name, or vice versa. So I
don't think either a 110 or a 410 in the form "BBC (British Broadcasting
Corporation" is actually allowed in RDA, more's the pity. �****

�****

Regards****

Richard****

�****

Richard Moore****

Authority Control Team Manager****

The British Library****
� ------------------------------

*From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging on behalf of Boehr, Diane
(NIH/NLM) [E]
*Sent:* Thu 13/06/2013 20:36
*To:* [log in to unmask]
*Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] References from initialisms****


I am seeing other libraries using the full form of the name as the
qualifier, which seems like a good idea. �****

�****

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:* Paiste, Marsha S. [mailto:[log in to unmask]EDU<[log in to unmask]>]

*Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:58 AM
*To:* [log in to unmask]
*Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] References from initialisms****

�****

In view of Paul Franks? clear message regarding initialisms, I wonder if

there is �a list of acceptable qualifiers. �I am currently creating an
authority record for the Boston School of Occupational Therapy or BSOT. �It
was founding during the WWI for high school and college graduates to
receive professional education. �(Later it joined with Tufts University, so
a second record will be created for that form of name.) �****

�****


Can I use 410 BSOT (Professional school) and 410 B.S.O.T. �(Professional
school)? �Is there a better qualifier?****

�****

Thanks****

Marsha****

�****

**************************************************************************
****

Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk****

�****

The British Library?s latest Annual Report and Accounts :
www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html****

�****


Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book.
www.bl.uk/adoptabook****

�****


The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled****

�****

**************************************************************************
***


�****

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be
legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are
not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the
[log in to unmask] : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or
copied without the sender's consent. ****

�****


The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the
author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The
British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the
author. ****

�****

*************************************************************************
****

�Think before you print****




--
Stanley Elswick
NOAA Central Library
301.713.2607 x138

*The content of this msg., unless stated explicity otherwise, reflects only
my personal views and not the views of the U.S. Government.*




--
Stanley Elswick
NOAA Central Library
301.713.2607 x138

The content of this msg., unless stated explicity otherwise, reflects only my personal views and not the views of the U.S. Government.