My personal thoughts on this.  --Adam

On Tue, 14 Oct 2014, Theroux, Manon (Secretary) wrote:

> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 20:53:12 +0000
> From: "Theroux, Manon (Secretary)" <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Corporate bodies that revert back to a previous name
> We have identified a number of cases in which an existing authority record for a Congressional committee needs to be split into two records. These represent situations where the committee used one name (let's call it Name A) for a period of time, then changed to a different name (Name B), then reverted back to the previously held name (Name A). Under AACR2, we were expected to follow LCRI 26.3B-C and use Name A to represent both the earlier and later instances of the name. Under RDA PCC policy, the two bodies need to be differentiated. Here is an example:
> Existing record (n  79043116):
> 110 United States. $b Congress. $b Senate. $b Committee on Public Lands
> According to our reference source, this name was used from Dec. 10, 1816-Apr. 18, 1821, and then again from Jan. 2, 1947-Jan. 2, 1948. So, in the RDA environment, we would need two access points:
> 110 United States. $b Congress. $b Senate. $b Committee on Public Lands (1816-1821)
> 110 United States. $b Congress. $b Senate. $b Committee on Public Lands (1947-1948)
> We have done some research to identify which Congressional committees are affected. Using reference sources, we have also come up with the chronological qualifiers that could be used to differentiate the bodies. According to LC PCC Policy Statement for, a qualifier would get added to each of the names. The changes would carry down to the names of any subcommittees established under these committees as well.
> However, before we start making changes to authority records and embarking on what will be a huge in-house maintenance project for us (and presumably for many other libraries and OCLC as well), we'd like to get feedback on a few questions:
> 1)      Should the date qualifier be the date range? RDA simply says "Add a date or dates associated with the body ..." We prefer to use a date range but have come across examples in existing authority records where only one of the two access points has been qualified and only the beginning of the date range has been used to differentiate, e.g.:
> n  79029813:
> 110 1# United States. $b Congress. $b House. $b Committee on Science and Technology
> no2007035638:
> 110 1# United States. $b Congress. $b House. $b Committee on Science and Technology (2007)

AS: I think date ranges are the most helpful, if you are able to supply 
them.  Periods of activity are also now available to use in a qualifier if 
you don't have exact dates.  If only the starting date is given, I would 
think it should be open-ended: (2007- ) rather than (2007).  And if only 
the termination date is known, it could also be used, e.g. ( -1821)

Date is not the only thing you could add, although probably the most 
useful.  RDA tells us that if none of the addition in 
to is sufficient or appropriate, you can add any other 
designation associated with the body.  If you decided that dates are 
impossible to ascertain, you could perhaps use something like the 
committee chairman's surname.  That wouldn't work obviously if the chair 
changes during the life of the committee.

> 2)      There isn't any movement afoot to introduce an LC-PCC PS to revert back to the old LCRI practice, is there? It seems doubtful, but we don't want to go to the trouble of making these changes only have to undo them down the road.

AS: Something for the Standing Committee on Standards and LC PSD to 
respond to.

> 3)      If an existing authority record needs to be split into two, rather than updating the existing record and creating one additional record, wouldn't it be better to create two new records, then have the existing record deleted? That way incorrect heading flips could be avoided. The situation seems very similar to subject heading splits.

AS: I think what you propose makes the most sense.  The one situation 
where you might leave the existing NAR and create just one new one would 
be when you are dealing with a brand new change, and all of the access 
points assigned already could only have been for the earlier name for the 
body.  For example body A exists from 1960-2014, then changes to body B in 
2014, and in 2015 it changes back to name A.  Chances are if you catch the 
change right at, or shortly after, the moment it happens, all access 
points assigned for the name A will correspond to the access point already 
found in an NAR, so any change to that will cause the access points to 
flip correctly to the revised form.  That said, I think the safest option 
in most cases would be to cancel the existing NAR for name A and creat two 
new ones.

> 4)      Anything else we should be sure to do (or not do)?

AS: Good idea to ask about this.  Perhaps an explicit LC-PCC PS is 
warranted if we are going to cancel existing AACR2 NARs in this situation.

> Thanks,
> Manon
> --
> Manon Th?roux
> Head of Technical Services
> U.S. Senate Library
> SR-B15 Russell Senate Office Building
> Washington, DC  20510-7112
> 202-224-3833 (phone)
> 202-224-0879 (fax)
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

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]