Print

Print


RDA's definition of corporate body (8.1.2):

	An organization or group of persons and/or organizations

	that is identified by a particular name 

	and that acts, or may act, as a unit.

The Women's March on Washington was a group of persons; it was identified by a particular name ("Womens March on Washington", so named on its own website); and it acted as a unit. It clearly fits the RDA definition of a corporate body.

Since it's a corporate body, it gets established in the NACO Authority File.

I would think the other marches, which have their own names, would be separate, though related, corporate bodies, and should be established on separate authority records, if needed.

I agree that the book cited in the first 670 does not seem to be just about the Washington March. I think (a) the qualifier in the 411 in this record should be adjusted to avoid conflict with the other marches with the same or similar name; and (b) from the first 670 I think the more general "Women's March" also qualifies as a corporate body (it's a group of people, it has a particular name, it acted) and so could be established in its own right on its own authority record in the NAF.

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568


-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moody, Honor M.
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 1:48 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: H 1592 and lccn n 2017007203, Women's March on Washington $d (2017)

Hello all,

I noticed that n 2017007203 Women's March on Washington $d (2017) seems to be doing double duty for both a specific named march (https://www.womensmarch.com/) that took place in DC and numerous other loosely affiliated marches (https://www.womensmarch.com/sisters) held in other places on the same day (and with a variety of names).

I asked John Hostage about this, and he suggested that the marches do not meet the criteria for establishment in the NAF per H 1592, 2nd paragraph.

My questions for the list are: should lccn n 2017007203 
	1. be moved to the SAF (genericized)?
	2. remain in the NAF, but be qualified by place and representing only the specific march that took place in DC?
	3. remain in the NAF, qualified by place and representing only the specific march that took place in DC and also be established in a genericized way in 	 	the SAF?
	4. Some other option?

The Schlesinger has acquired posters and other ephemera from the Women's March on Washington and the Boston Women's March for America, and anticipate receiving material from other marches held that day as well (and would like to record the particulars as 6xxs). I would argue that the work cited in lccn n 2017007203's 1st 670, "Why we march" would be better served by a generic SH (I have it in hand; as far as I can tell, it is not an official publication of any march, and refers to them only collectively as the women's march or by location alone).

I would also be interested in hearing more generally about arguments for and against the establishment of marches/demonstrations in the NAF-I noticed several, and we have ephemera collected from the 2017 March for Life that wants cataloging as well.

Best,
Honor


Honor Moody
Cataloger
Schlesinger Library
Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study
3 James Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
Tel.: (617) 495-4223
Email: [log in to unmask]