Yes, it would make sense to me to use an open date range if the committee is still in existence. And reserve single years (with no hyphen) for situations when the name lasted for only that year.


On Oct 14, 2014, at 5:55 PM, Robert Maxwell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I like the date range qualifiers you propose, Manon, but what would you do about one that’s still in existence? Give an open date? E.g. (supposing the Committee on Public Lands is still in existence),


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- )


I do think date ranges (including ones with open dates on either side) are easier to understand by users than just a single date—I suspect the average library user may not know what to make of those.


In answer to question no. 2, I certainly hope we do not revert to the old practice. If cataloging theory is correct (and I happen to think it is), these bodies are separate entities, not the same entity, and so should be differentiated.





Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602

"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 Theroux, Manon (Secretary)
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 2:53 PM
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

110 1# United States. $b Congress. $b House. $b Committee on Science and Technology (2007)

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.

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.

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





Manon Théroux

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]