One favor to ask,
If you get a response from the Coop on whether it’s preferable to change a 110 to a 111, or to create a new 110 and request that the 111 be cancelled, I, and probably a lot of folks on this list as well, would appreciate knowing what they say.
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Ann Heinrichs
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 3:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] A conference that's not a conference, but a corporate body?
Thanks a bunch, Adam. Will contact the NACO folks.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Adam L. Schiff <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
OCLC doesn't delete authority records. Only LC can do that. If the conference heading (111) isn't valid, you'd have to report it to [log in to unmask] with a request that it be deleted. If the heading all along should have been a 110 corporate body, I think it could be ok to change it rather than cancelling it and creating a new NAR. I would consult with the Coop Cat staff at LC ([log in to unmask]) if you're unsure how to proceed.
University of Washington Libraries
Women's Ordination Conference
" is an organization that existed from 1978 to 1986.
- Therefore, it is a corporate body.
- Boston WOC held a "public hearing" in
1980, at which people gave presentations. It never held an
other public hearing during its 8-year lifetime.
- Boston WOC is the organization that organized
the (otherwise nameless) Spring 1980 public hearing.
I should make a new NAR for 110 Boston
Women's Ordination Conference.
- Do I then ... what? ... request
of OCLC to delete the 111 record?
Regarding the hierarchical relationship with the (national) Women's Ordination Conference:
In the Marquette U. archives is:
- WOC, Series 6:
- WOMEN'S ORDINATION CONFERENCE RECORDS
- STATE AND LOCAL GROUPS, 1976-1999
of which Box 1, Folder 12 is:
- Massachusetts, Boston Women's Ordination Conference, 1978-1986
This seems to be a clear case of a hierarchical relationship.
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:53 PM, Hostage, John <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
The NAR for Boston Women's Ordination Conference ǂd (1980) seems to be clearly for a conference or meeting. The bib record mentions a public hearing. The heading should include the location in the qualifier. If there is also an organization by that name it would probably have to be qualified by (Organization), but there is no need to establish it unless you have resources that require the name. It's also possible that Boston Women's Ordination Conference was the name of an organization that sponsored an otherwise unnamed public hearing in spring 1980.
The Women's Ordination Conference is clearly a corporate body, but I don't see that a clear relationship has been established between the two headings.
Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
Langdell Hall 194
Harvard Law School Library
Cambridge, MA 02138
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917
Please help! I have in hand a book of presentations given at the Boston Women's Ordination Conference in Spring 1980 (OCLC#8204112). There is an authority record (ARN 1350854) with:
111 2_ Boston Women's Ordination Conference ǂd (1980)
667 __ THIS 1XX FIELD CANNOT BE USED UNDER RDA UNTIL THIS RECORD HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND/OR UPDATED
Meanwhile, there is also a NAR (ARN 3063795) for:
110 2_ Women's Ordination Conference
The first record is created as a 111. However, this "conference" is an organization that existed 1978-1986 and, according to all evidence, had a big meeting with presentations only once, in 1980. Should it not actually be a 110? If so, should I revise it accordingly, or make a new record and request this one for deletion?
The second record is created as a 110. According to their history, this organization was founded in 1975 and had national conferences four times (1975, 1978, 1995, 2000). This record is properly a 110, right? Only if I came across proceedings of a national conference would I create a separate 111 record, right?
Assuming both of these records should be 110s, they would have a hierarchical superior/subordinate relationship, right? because the WOC had "state and local groups."
Thank you so much for guiding me through the woods on this one!