I think that John Marr makes some valid points. I, too, think that it is logical to enter Leif Ericson Lodge No. 1 subordinately under Sons of Norway (U.S.). I'm not sure I understand why (Seattle, Wash.) needs to be added to the access point even if there is a guideline in RDA 126.96.36.199 that says to do that. Unless the Sons of Norway (U.S.) has another Leif Ericson Lodge No. 1 in a different place (other than Seattle), it seems unnecessary and falls into predicting a conflict. The concern I would have about following AACR2 guidelines in the absence of RDA guidelines is that while we currently have a cadre of catalogers who are familiar with AACR2, that's not always going to be the case. I would be more comfortable with saying that in the absence of a clear guideline in RDA, use cataloger's judgment and create the authorized access point as the cataloger sees fit. The AACR2 guidelines are quickly becoming obsolete, so I wouldn't suggest referring catalogers to outdated guidelines. It's also not going to be obvious that the cataloger followed an AACR2 guideline if the record is coded RDA. If the AACR2 practice is what we really need, and it isn't reflected in RDA, then I think that the AACR2 guideline needs to be incorporated formally into the RDA guidelines. It is often perplexing why some things were carried over to RDA wholesale from AACR2, while other things were left behind. As Bob Maxwell suggested in a recent posting, some things were carried over to RDA just because they reflected the current practice as documented in AACR2. Unfortunately, I think that a lot of practices were carried over from AACR2 to RDA just because it was the path of least resistance rather than having to evaluate whether the practice really served our needs (current and future). Other new practices were incorporated into RDA that don't seem to work well. (Of course, we're just finding this out now as we are trying to follow the guidelines What sounded good to the authors of RDA in theory may not work so well in practice.) I think that it's worth suggesting revisions to the RDA guidelines when they don't serve our purposes. Doing something "because RDA says so" isn't a good reason for doing it. The rules or guidelines are a means to an end. Following the rules isn't the goal. Creating description that makes a resource discoverable is the goal. The whole cataloger's judgment thing was touted as one of the advantages of RDA. However, the corporate culture of cataloging is still rooted in having one "right" or "correct" way of doing something. If we end up with a policy statement for each guideline in RDA, we eliminate options. I was looking forward to having guidelines that would allow for more flexibility that AACR2 did, but I'm not sure that this is happening thus far with RDA. Rigid rules may be easier to follow than cases where there is more ambiguity requiring judgment. In cases where there aren't "clear" guidelines (what's clear to one person may not be to someone else, of course), I think that the cataloger needs to do what he or she thinks is best without agonizing over it. At some point, the law of diminishing return kicks in. The more time you spend agonizing on one thing, the less efficient you are at getting the job done. The other frustrating thing with RDA is that we're trying to follow the FRBR model in legacy systems that don't support it. In hindsight, it may have been better to defer RDA implementation until we could work in systems that really support it, unlike the flat MARC record systems most of us work in currently. Gene Eugene Dickerson Team Leader for Cataloging Ralph J. Bunche Library U.S. Department of State Washington, DC [log in to unmask] (202) 647-2191 (voice) No part of any article sent to you by the Bunche Library can be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted without prior written permission of the publisher. The exception is brief quotations. -----Original Message----- From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Gordon Marr Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 3:19 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] [RDA-L] RE: Subordinate or not: fraternal organization chapters Hi Stephen: If you are referring to the "situation" regarding the matter of Leif Erikson Lodge, my feeling is that use as a subordinate name is logical, since it is (as an example) absolutely dependent upon and representative of the Sons of Norway and has absolutely no independent status. It cannot exist without its superior. Therein lies the difference from such institution as "named" museums (for example) merely *affiliated* with other bodies (e.g., states, universities, etc.) If you are referring to matters covered clearly by AACR-2 and not by RDA, I'd suggest two things. 1, just go with AARC2 as the simplest approach in all such cases. 2, pay more attention to the fact that RDA is simply not clear or concise or "standard" in general. Thus, you can't *obey* RDA throughout if, in fact, RDA favors "catalogers' prerogative" in many instances. If you are referring to the situation of RDA not being entirely practical or logical (or even perfect), I'm all in favor of subverting it in practice where disagreement with its content can be effective in designing alternatives that can facilitate changes to it. If you cannot try alternatives, then you are stuck with a stone monument to inflexibility at all costs. If you are talking about the manner in which politicians favoring authoritarianism rather than empathy effect their own election by making their opposition *look* less aggressive (dare I say "wimpy"?), then you have to consider being aggressive in response to them, with the eventual goals being the exposure and elimination of anti-empathetic authoritarianism from societies. A large chunk of the electorate does not vote on "issues", only on whether their proposed leaders seem capable of leading, even if it be straight to he**, locked and loaded. Cheers! John G. Marr DACS Zimmerman Library University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87010 [log in to unmask] **"I really like to know the reasons for what I do!"** Martha Watson Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but sharing is permitted. -----Original Message----- From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Early Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 12:03 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] [RDA-L] RE: Subordinate or not: fraternal organization chapters What would be your own solution to this situation, John? Stephen T. Early Cataloger Center for Research Libraries 6050 S. Kenwood Chicago, IL 60637 773-955-4545 x326 [log in to unmask] CRL website: www.crl.edu -----Original Message----- From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Gordon Marr Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 11:46 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] [RDA-L] RE: Subordinate or not: fraternal organization chapters What is most interesting about this thread is that people can compulsively require decision-making to be based on blind obedience to rules (even when the rules don't exist) rather than on critical thinking based on logic. And these people vote? Cheers! John G. Marr DACS Zimmerman Library University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87010 [log in to unmask] **"I really like to know the reasons for what I do!"** Martha Watson Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but sharing is permitted. -----Original Message----- From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 5:55 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] [RDA-L] RE: Subordinate or not: fraternal organization chapters Patricia, We also think that Sons of Norway (U.S.). Leif Erikson Lodge No. 1 is the preferred form of the name. And Kate James pointed to the instruction in RDA at 188.8.131.52 that tells us to add (Seattle, Wash.) to the access point, if a chapter, branch, etc., is recorded as a subdivision of a higher body. But I'm still not convinced that RDA compels us to record the lodge as a subdivision of the parent body. If the name were "Lodge No. 1" then I would agree that it "simply indicates a geographic, chronological, or numbered or lettered subdivision of a parent body" according to 184.108.40.206.3. But with the words Leif Erikson in front of Lodge No. 1, does it still simply indicate a numbered subdivision? LCRI 24.9 told us yes, that it does. But there's no policy statement like it to tell us that it does in RDA. Adam On Fri, 24 Oct 2014, Patricia Sayre-McCoy wrote: > Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 21:00:29 +0000 > From: Patricia Sayre-McCoy <[log in to unmask]> > Reply-To: [log in to unmask] > To: RDA Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>, > PCC Discussion List <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: [RDA-L] RE: Subordinate or not: fraternal organization > chapters > > You realize that this answer is coming late on a Friday afternoon after a very stressful week, and so will excuse any real dumb comments as being from the creature that has temporarily taken over my mind. > > I think Sons of Norway (U.S.). Leif Erikson Lodge No. 1 is the correct form. > > Sons of Norway (U.S.) is the parent organization and clearly needs a qualifier. Since you say there is no other Leif Erikson Lodge No. 1, there is no conflict if you use only "Leif Erikson Lodge No. 1" as the subordinate unit. As for the number, the examples given for 220.127.116.11.3 includes things like "Class of 1957" where 1957 is too generic to stand alone. I would make a case that the number makes "Leif Erikson Lodge No. 1" distinct enough and doesn't need its own geographic qualifier. > Pat > > Patricia Sayre-McCoy > Head, Law Cataloging and Serials > D'Angelo Law Library > 1121 E. 60th Street > Chicago IL 60637 > [log in to unmask] > 773-702-9620 (w) > 773-702-2889 (fax) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam L. Schiff [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 3:09 PM > To: PCC Discussion List; RDA Discussion List > Subject: [RDA-L] 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 18.104.22.168.3: > > Apply the instructions at 22.214.171.124 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 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This email is UNCLASSIFIED.