Print

Print


You found what Adam and I missed (it would be helpful to put a link to this instruction from the AACR2 rule), but I still believe what I said in my previous message: what is the principled reason for this instruction? It appears to have been brought over simply "because" ... There's certainly no theoretical reason I can think of why we should insist on qualifying these names with a local place. We don't insist on it with other kinds of corporate bodies except churches and radio/television stations. Why those three exceptions out of all the possible kinds of corporate bodies?

And once again, the instruction begins: "*if* a chapter, branch, etc. is recorded as a subdivision of a higher body ..." I see no reason why, for example, "DeWitt Clinton Commandery No. 1" was recorded as a subdivision of a higher body. Or actually, any of the examples. So in my opinion the instrruction doesn't apply to the examples anyway.

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
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.

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of James, Kate
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 2:44 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Subordinate or not: fraternal organization chapters

The equivalent of AACR2 24.9 is within 11.13.1.3, and can be quickly found by doing an advanced search for the phrase "chapter, branch".

See the part of 11.13.1.3 below the Optional Addition:


If:
a chapter, branch, etc., is recorded as a subdivision of a higher body (see 11.2.2.14) and it carries out the activities of the higher body in a particular locality and the name of the locality is not already part of the name of the chapter, branch, etc.
then:
add the name of the locality.
 
 
 
EXAMPLE
Knights Templar (Masonic order). Grand Commandery (Ohio) Knights Templar (Masonic order). DeWitt Clinton Commandery No. 1 (Virginia City, Nev.) but Knights Templar (Masonic order). Boston Encampment not Knights Templar (Masonic order). Boston Encampment (Boston, Mass.)



Kate James
Policy and Standards Division
Library of Congress

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 4:09 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Subordinate or not: fraternal organization chapters

AACR2 24.9 has no equivalent in RDA:

If a chapter, branch, etc., entered subordinately (see 24.13), carries out the activities of a corporate body in a particular locality or within a particular institution, add the name of the locality or institution, unless it is part of the name of the chapter, branch, etc.

The LCRI for it says:

The rule is for any type of organization that covers a large geographic area in which chapters, branches, etc., are necessary for local activities of the membership.  These chapters, branches, etc., can normally be recognized in two ways:

1)  The organization is a fraternal one;

2)  The designation of every chapter, branch, etc., includes a generic term that is either one traditionally used for such ("post," "lodge," 
etc.) or an imaginative innovation to convey the same sense ("valley," 
"stake," etc.).

Consider the presence of any of these generic designations used for presumably all the chapters, branches, etc., as sufficient reason for subordinate entry in all cases.

American Legion. William Peck Post No. 279 (Minneapolis, Minn.) Grand Army of the Republic. St. Paul Camp No. 1 Scottish Rite (Masonic order). Valley of Minneapolis Vasa Order of America. Carl XVI Gustav Lodge 716 (Dallas, Tex.)


None of this has been carried over in RDA or LC-PCC PS.

The only relevant RDA instruction that seems to apply is 11.2.2.14.3:

Apply the instructions at 11.2.2.14 to a name that is general in nature (e.g., contains neither distinctive proper nouns or adjectives, nor subject words) or that simply indicates a geographic, chronological, or numbered or lettered subdivision of a parent body.

We recently had to set up a body called Leif Erikson Lodge No. 1.  It's a lodge within the Sons of Norway.  It's not clear to us that "Leif Erikson Lodge No. 1" SIMPLY indicates a numbered subdivision of a parent body. 
"Lodge No. 1" would we think.  But does "Leif Erikson Lodge No. 1"?  As best we can determine there are many other Leif Erikson Lodges within Sons of Norway, but no other numbered No. 1.  So the question is, which is the correct RDA result:

Sons of Norway (U.S.). Leif Erikson Lodge No. 1 (Seattle, Wash.)

Leif Erikson Lodge No. 1

Leif Erikson Lodge No. 1 (Seattle, Wash.)

Leif Erikson Lodge No. 1 (Sons of Norway (U.S.))

or something else?


If the answer is as we did it in AACR2 (the first result given above), then there's nothing in RDA or a policy statement that says to add the local place name as a qualifier unless it's part of the name.  Don't we need a policy statement if we want to continue to get the same result as we did in AACR2?

I searched OCLC authorities for RDA fraternal lodges and did not find any that were established differently than we were doing in AACR2.  That implies that catalogers are not really applying RDA as written but simply carrying over their knowledge of AACR2 and the LCRI for 24.9.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~