Dear PCCLIST ([log in to unmask]) readers,


Thanks to Chris Baer for his remarks about the NAR below.  I agree that the qualifier should be changed. It is misleading - it mislead me, and is likely to cause catalog users to assume that the place actually exists somewhere in Prince George's County. In a private message, however, I was advised that LC-PCC PS for under Proposed Bodies  addresses the situation - which it does, in part. It reads: “If an authorized access point is needed for a proposed body, use the name found in the available resources as the preferred name. If the body is established later and the name differs from the proposed name, use the actual name in the authorized access point and treat the proposed name as a variant access point.”  What the policy statement doesn't cover is cases like this one, where the body fails to materialize.


My correspondent also said, " If it were me, I would be thankful someone had already established it and take it."  I am indeed grateful, and will use it unchanged, because the NAR helps me to do my job. But this access point is troublesome.  I believe that we might be better advised in the policy statement with a sentence such as: If the proposed body is abandoned without coming into existence, edit the qualifier to reflect the situation appropriately, e.g. "Proposed real-estate development".


Is there a possibility that someone reading this email will take such action?  Or do I have to send a request to [log in to unmask] or elsewhere? 


Ian Fairclough

Cataloging and Metadata Services Librarian

George Mason University


[log in to unmask]


010  n  87846563

040  DGPO ǂb eng ǂc DLC ǂd DLC

1102 PortAmerica (Prince George's County, Md.)

670  U.S. Cong. Senate. Comm. on Environment and Public Works. PortAmerica project oversight, 1987: ǂb t.p. (PortAmerica) p. 2 (Prince Georges County, Md.)