 |
 |
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 > > >