Print

Print


Hi Pete,

    I don’t think I would include CIAA in my conference name authorized access point.  I would of course include it in the NAR for the generic conference name as a 411.  But does RDA specify that an acronym included as part of a name like this get included?  I guess I would have to see the resource being cataloged and re-read the rules about corporate headings:



  RDA 11.2.2.3 says, “When choosing a preferred name for corporate body, choose the name by which the corporate body is commonly identified.  When a corporate body is known by more than one form of the same name, see additional instructions on choosing the preferred name at 11.2.2.5<https://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp11&target=rda11-1275#rda11-1275>



   RDA 11.2.2.5 basically says to choose the most commonly found form of the name, but if there is none, “… choose a brief form of the name. The brief form may be an initialism or an acronym. The brief form must be sufficiently specific to differentiate the body from others with the same or similar brief names.”



  RDA 11.2.3.5 Acronym/Initialism/Abbreviated Form says, “If a preferred name for corporate body is a full form of the name, record an acronym, initialism, or abbreviated form of the name as a variant name.”



By looking at all of this, I’d say choose either the full form or the brief form, but not both, as your authorized access point.



Cheers,



   Louise

Louise Ratliff
Social Sciences and Map Catalog Librarian
UCLA Library Cataloging & Metadata Center
2400 Life Sciences Building
Box 957230
Los Angeles, CA 90095-7230
(310)206-5853

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Wilson, Pete
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 1:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Strange conference heading

Take a look at n 2016055737, a DLC-made conference authority:

111:2 : Congreso Internacional de Antropologiìa Aplicada (CIAA) $n (1st : $d 2013 : $c Lima, Peru)

Can the acronym “CIAA” actually be a legitimate part of the heading?  I wondered if anyone was trying to use it as a qualifier to break a conflict, but that’s not it.

Just checking to make sure I haven’t missed something.

Thanks,

Pete Wilson
Vanderbilt University