I’m with John here. I would take the qualifier off of the 110 as well, unless you’re saying that the body existed before statehood and this the qualifier is needed to distinguish it from a pre-statehood form.

 

And by the way, Hi Ed!

 

Lucy

 

 

Lucy A. Barron
Head, Scandinavia, Baltic, & Central Germanic Section
Germanic & Slavic Division
Library of Congress
101 Independence Ave., SE
Washington, DC 20540-4244
[log in to unmask]
(202) 707-6326
(202) 252-3379 fax

[log in to unmask]" alt="Library of Congress">

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Hostage, John
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 2:47 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Qualifier In 4XX That Already Identifies Superior Body In Hierarchy

 

I think this misunderstands what it means to assist in the identification of the body.  A name like Alaska Fisheries Science Center does not need the addition of a place because the name of the place with which the body is associated is already in the name.  This does not imply that it is an agency of the state of Alaska nor would I assume that a user thinks in cataloger terms of being “under a state.”  As far as identifying the country in which it is located, I think that is pretty evident from the word “Alaska”. 

 

The 4 examples under the Optional addition are quite different.

 

Provincial Intermediate Teachers’ Association (B.C.)

“Provincial” is generic and begs the question, which province?  The qualifier assists in the identification because it identifies which province.  Analagous would be State Fisheries Science Center.

 

National Entrepreneurship Observatory (Wales)

Same as above; which nation?

 

Project HOME (Chittenden County, Vt.)

A generic sounding name of unknown scope without the qualifier.

 

Bushcare (Program : Australia)

A name that doesn’t sound like a corporate body and of unknown scope.

 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center doesn’t fit any of those examples.  The scope of the body is clearly limited to Alaska.

 

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

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 Bokow, Martin S.
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 12:55
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Qualifier In 4XX That Already Identifies Superior Body In Hierarchy

 

Nancy – thanks for removing the superfluous second 410.

 

Bob – I think you misrepresented the reason for adding the optional qualifier “(U.S.).” It’s not an “ancient practice.” GPO routinely applies the Optional Addition in 11.13.1.3. In this example, GPO adds “(U.S.)” at the end, because “the addition assists in the identification of the body.” Since the name includes the word “Alaska,” it is reasonable to assume that a user may think it is under the state of Alaska. But beyond this, why not identify the English speaking country in which a generalizable name is located? I think the four examples under this Optional Addition say it all.

 

Marty Bokow  |  Librarian (Data Integrity & Authority Control)  |  Library Services & Content Management  |  ph 202.512.2010 x 31120
GPO | OFFICIAL | DIGITAL | SECURE  |  732 North Capitol Street, NW, Washington, DC 20401

www.gpo.gov  |  facebook.com/USGPO  | twitter.com/usgpo

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 2:18 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Qualifier In 4XX That Already Identifies Superior Body In Hierarchy

 

I agree that the second 410 is superfluous.

 

I also point out that the qualifier in the authorized access point is unnecessary unless there is another body that goes by the name “Alaska Fisheries Science Center”. Neither AACR2 nor RDA called for a qualifier simply  to identify a body as a federal level government agency. That was an LCRI requirement (LCRI 24.4C, based on a pre-AACR2 distinction between government bodies that were “instititutions” and those that were not, one of which got qualified and the other of which did not) that did not migrate into the RDA policy statements, hallelujah.

 

So if I were creating the AAP for this body today I would not include the qualifier “(U.S.)” in the authorized access point, much less in a variant access point. However, we’re not going back and removing these superfluous qualifiers from authorized access points in 1XX. But going forward there is no need to follow this ancient practice. On the other hand, yes I do think you should remove the superfluous variant access point (the 410).

 

Bob

 

 

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

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Robert Bratton
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 11:09 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Qualifier In 4XX That Already Identifies Superior Body In Hierarchy

 

Hello Ed,

 

The second 410 seems superfluous to me.

 

Robert

 

--

Robert Bratton

Cataloging Librarian

Jacob Burns Law Library

George Washington University

Washington, DC

 

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 12:36 PM Ed M. Kazzimir <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I found this today in an authority record:

 

110  2   Alaska Fisheries Science Center (U.S.)

410  1   United States. ǂb National Marine Fisheries Service. ǂb Alaska Fisheries Science Center

410  1   United States. ǂb National Marine Fisheries Service. ǂb Alaska Fisheries Science Center (U.S.)

 

Are both of these 410 fields allowed or even necessary?  I would think that the second 410 field is not needed, because the qualifier in that 410 already identifies the superior body in the hierarchy.

 

The qualifier "(U.S.)" is added to the preferred form of name in order to identify it as a federal level government agency.  Generally, when a body is a hierarchical subordinate, we make the reference from the higher body and plop the name entered directly into subfield-b.  But I would think that we make logical changes that involve the additions to the name, such as omitting data that are understood from context within the cross-reference.

 

Or do we always make a see-from reference under the exact access point in 1XX for some technical reason?

 

Ed Kazzimir

ARLIS