I agree with Richard’s reading. If an ongoing conference has been established both “collectively” and as individual sessions, the preferred place for the 5xx’s is the ongoing. But if there is no established collective conference entity then, if a cataloger feels the need to alert users of a change in name then adding the 5xx’s to the record for the individual is the only way to go


One could argue that, if there is a need for 5xx’s predecessor/successor cross references then there is an ipso facto need to establish the conference as a collective entity. But to my mind, that in itself does not warrant the creation of parallel ARs. If we want to get really down into the weeds I suppose it’s a question of how you read the final sentence: “A record for the collective conference should always be made to connect the earlier and later names of the collective conference” – is it “a record should always be made [= created, when needed] to  connect the earlier and later names”, or “a record should always be <made to connect> the earlier and later names [when such exist]”?

 

Perhaps that PS could use some clarification.

 

There is a certain logic to saying: collective conference ARs represent the conference as a whole, therefore it makes sense to record changes to the conference there (roughly analogous to the way we might record changes to the title of a monographic series  in its serial record or SAR but no on each individual monograph bib.) But that logic does not, to my mind, override the need to allow catalogers to establish the name entities –and only those name entities—that are immediately relevant to their work.

In any case I think the use of the modal verb “may”, as well as the parenthetical phrases “(typically made when cataloging a serial),” e.g., in this PS are quite deliberate attempts to limit the scope of the requirement to create parallel record structures. There is no PCC requirement that you do one or the other, or both. If you need to establish entities for monographic works, do them individually; for serial works, do them collectively. If you’re a completionist (many catalogers are) you are free to do both, but it’s not required.

 

In this specific case, particularly if those were the only 3 instances of the conference in our collection, I would probably just establish the three conferences individually and not really worry about connecting them with see also’s. I would leave the task of collocating the proceedings to classification and shelflisting of the actual proceedings.

 

--Ben

 

 

Benjamin Abrahamse

Cataloging Coordinator

Acquisitions & Discovery Enhancement

MIT Libraries

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 10:13 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] names of individual conferences/meetings

 

My opinion:

 

We’ve encountered cases like this, where there might, slightly redundantly, be one collective conference for each individual conference, just to carry the reference structure.

 

LC-PCC-PS for 11.13.1.8 says: “For ongoing conferences, separate authority records may be created for the collective conference”.

 

Generally a new collective conference NAR is created when a conference changes its name, so “ongoing conference” in this PS has to mean “ongoing conference with the same name”. In the case under consideration, there is no ongoing conference with the same name, as each name occurs only once – and they can’t be treated as variants. So no collective conference name exists, and there can be no collective NARs.

 

The PS finishes: “A record for the collective conference should always be made to connect the earlier and later names of the collective conference”

 

There’s nothing there to say that see-also references can’t be made between individual conference names, when no collective name exists. Each is very much a predecessor of the next.

 

What would be useful?

 

 

Regards

Richard

 

________________________

Richard Moore

Authority Control Team Manager

The British Library

                                                                       

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546104                                  

E-mail: [log in to unmask]      

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: 29 March 2017 14:53
To:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] names of individual conferences/meetings

 

Yeah, in a situation like this one, I think the see also references would be better on the individual conference names and no collective conference name records made at all.

 

Adam

 

Adam Schiff

Principal Cataloger

University of Washington Libraries


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of John Hostage <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 6:48:37 AM
To:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: names of individual conferences/meetings

 

According to LC-PCC PS for 11.13.1.8 and 11.13.18.1, the see also references would be made only on the record for the collective conferences, but it does seem a little excessive when each name has only one occurrence.

 

------------------------------------------

John Hostage

Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger

Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services

Langdell Hall 194

Harvard Law School Library

Cambridge, MA 02138

[log in to unmask]

+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)

+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 18:20
To:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] names of individual conferences/meetings

 

Yes, the primary source of information for the preferred name are resources issued by the bodies, and the name as found on the title page.  You’re not required to do further research unless you have a conflict between two entities that have the same preferred name.  The only thing you have to determine is whether “Working Girls Societies”, “Working Girls’ Clubs”, and “Working Women’s Clubs” are corporate bodies in and of themselves.  If they are, then you would have subordinate entry instead of the direct entry you show below.  It doesn’t seem as if any of them could be considered entities unto themselves, so I think the access points you have given below are correct.

 

If authority records were being established for these conferences, they could be linked together using see also references for the earlier and later names.

 

Adam Schiff

University of Washington Libraries

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jessica Janecki
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 2:08 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: names of individual conferences/meetings

 

I have the conference proceedings of 3 conferences/conventions/meetings. As far as I can tell, they are all the same conference series. However, the name of each is different. I am doing monographic cataloging and I want to construct an AAP for each individual conference. Is it as simple as choosing the preferred name directly from the piece?

 

For example:

 

National Convention of Working Girls Societies $n (1st : $d 1890 : $c New York, N.Y.)

 

National Convention of Working Girls’ Clubs $n (2nd : $d 1894 : $c New York, N.Y.)

 

National Convention of Working Women’s Clubs $n (3rd : $d 1897 : $c New York, N.Y.)

 

Thanks,

Jessica Janecki

 


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

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