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