Print

Print


I started trying to work out part of this (collecting evidence to show that
that the subject usage and later name for Guanabara (Brazil : State) should
be changed from Rio de Janeiro (Brazil : State) to Rio de Janeiro (Brazil))
a few years ago, but never finished.  I agree with your analysis here.

Robert Rendall



Principal Serials Cataloger

Original and Special Materials Cataloging, Columbia University Libraries

102 Butler Library, 535 West 114th Street, New York, NY 10027

tel.: 212 851 2449  fax: 212 854 5167



C.V. Starr East Asian Library, Columbia University Libraries

307 Kent Hall, 1140 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10027

tel.: 212 854 2579  fax: 212 662 6286


e-mail: [log in to unmask]


On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 4:36 PM Hostage, John <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> The NAR for Distrito Federal (Brazil) [LCCN n  80083597] seems to have
> been used for descriptive purposes for the old federal district
> (1889-1960), which was essentially the same as the city of Rio de Janeiro,
> and the current federal district where Brasilia is located (since 1960).
> However, the record has a 667 that says subject usage is only for the
> current district.
>
>
>
> It doesn’t make sense to use the same heading for both districts for
> descriptive purposes. Doing so conflicts with the coordinates in the 034
> fields. However, the record has some references using the name Rio de
> Janeiro.
>
>
>
> Some of the government bodies that have been established were part of the
> old district, e.g., Distrito Federal (Brazil). ǂb Comissão de Transporte
> Coletivo.
>
>
>
> I believe the old federal district should be established separately,
> probably with date qualifier. When the capital moved to Brasilia, the old
> district became the state of Guanabara.  Its territory was the same as the
> city of Rio de Janeiro, which was surrounded by the much larger state of
> Rio de Janeiro.  The state of Guanabara was dissolved in 1975 and it merged
> into the state of Rio de Janeiro.  However, the NAR for Guanabara has a 667
> that says to use Rio de Janeiro (Brazil : State) for subject usage,
> possibly because of imprecise language in a source consulted, but I think
> it would be more correct to use the city, which covered the same territory
> as Guanabara.  By the same token, Rio de Janeiro (Brazil : State) should
> not be given as the later name for Guanabara.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
>
>