Thank you, John! I didn’t read that line closely enough.
We might still need a change in policy if we wanted to allow pseudonymous places in the U.S., Australia, Canada, Great Britain, or New Zealand. But I agree that this name fits into current policy.
Actually, for places not in the U.S., Australia, Canada, Great Britain, or New Zealand, the PS says “base the preferred name on the form found in the resource being cataloged together with a consideration of the form found on the GEOnet Names Server (GNS).” So the record for Kalikaha follows the policy.
Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
Langdell Hall 194
Harvard Law School Library
Cambridge, MA 02138
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917
I was wondering that as well. I also wondered about coding this as RDA. While RDA permits pseudonyms for agents, it does not for places. Rather, it says that preferred names for a place must come from a gazetteer or other reference source. The LC-PCC PS for 184.108.40.206 specifies which sources are to be used. Apparently this name did not come from any of those sources, so the authority record conforms neither to strict RDA nor current PCC policy.
The RDA Beta Toolkit does not specify sources for preferred name, so it is left to application profiles. That gives leeway for pseudonymous place names. But if we wish to allow pseudonyms for places, we can’t simply translate current policy into an application profile.
The existing use case shows a potential need for pseudonymous places. But we may need to modify current policy if we want to allow more records like this.
Dear NACO Advisory Group,
I'm wondering if this is a "one-off" decision or a pattern to be followed going forward. In the case of Kalikaha, the cataloger didn't know it was pseudonymous when they first established it. If I get a work about a place with a pseudonymous geographic name and I know that it is pseudonymous, should I establish it in the NAF with a 675 and 667 note such as the one below? Or, not bother establishing in the NAF? Do we need a policy for establishing (or not) pseudonymous geographic headings when you know the name is pseudonymous?
Margaret W. Hughes
Metadata Librarian for Humanities, Social Sciences & Africana
Head, Classification Unit
Stanford, CA 94305
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of naco <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 5:01 AM
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] pseudonymous geographic name heading
PCC list readers,
Denis Brunke asked a very interesting question last week about the pseudonymous place Kalikaha. There were many different opinions posted by PCC list readers. The five members of the NACO Advisory Group looked at the issue and came to agreement. The Advisory Group will take these actions:
1) Leave the authority record for Kalikaha (n 88194374) in the LC/NACO Authority File and re-code it to RDA
2) Add an updated BGN search citation in the 675 field
3) Add a 667 note:
667 Kalikaha is a pseudonymous name for a Senufo village whose real name is unknown; the pseudonymous name was chosen to preserve the privacy of the town and its residents.
If the real name is ever revealed, the situation will be reevaluated in light of the new information at hand.
The authorized access point Kalikaha (Côte d'Ivoire) may be used for both descriptive and subject access.
NACO Advisory Group
Regarding: Kalikaha (Côte d'Ivoire) [n 88194374 ]
I'm still not sure how to proceed. It's not really an "imaginary place" like Wakanda or Middle Earth. It's a fake name for a real place, a real individual village. But we don't know the real name. In fact the author wants that real name to be secret, so they don't suffer political repercussions.
Should the name authority record be deleted or edited? Does it really deserve a subject authority record as a fictitious place? Or maybe there shouldn't be any authority records at all for this?