Thanks, Bob, for another helpful analysis.  I also thought that both headings weigh the same in this case.  That's why I hesitated to change and brought up the question.  The exception rule 11.2.2.5.4 (for a body that is "international in character") seems to give room for a cataloger's judgement as is the case in many other parts of the rules.  It gives me a burden to decide which corporate body should be treated as "international in character."  As you said, I would have established it with the Korean romanization form if I established the heading first time with Korean book in hand applying other rules that I mentioned in my earlier message.  But since Hyundai Group is already established and also a reasonable one, I will leave it the way it is and add some variant forms to the record.  

Thank you so much, Bob, for your kind explanation for me to follow up.

Erica Chang
Metadata Librarian
Univ. of Hawaii Library

  


On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 5:53 AM Robert Maxwell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
It's an interesting question whether "Hyundai Group" is an international body or not. RDA doesn't explicitly define the term. 11.2.2.5.3 implies (from the examples) that the intent is political bodies (at least there are no commercial bodies given as examples), but 11.2.2.5.4's exception (for a body that is "international in character") seems to bring commercial bodies into the fold for which we are told "If the name of a body of ancient origin or of one that is international in character has become well established in a form in a language preferred by the agency creating the data, choose that form as the preferred name". This suggests that "Hyundai Group" (no2008143102) is a reasonable choice for the preferred name in the NACO AF, whose preferred language is English. I do suggest that quite a few variant access points would be helpful and appropriate for no2008143102, including the Korean forms and their romanizations.

On the other hand, choosing the Korean form in the first place also would not have been unreasonable, in my opinion. But given that the English form has been established and that was not an unreasonable choice, I suggest leaving it and working from there. Note that this is a decision for this corporate body only; similar decisions for other Korean corporate bodies need to be made one at a time based on the evidence at hand when the body is established, so Erica, I wouldn't necessarily use this as a pattern for the other Korean corporate bodies you want to establish.

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Erica Chang <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 6:31 AM
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Asian conglomerate corporations
 
I agree with Bob's sound analysis. The subject heading rec needs to be changed to name authority record. I think Stephen brought up a legitimate question about the language form of the heading. I am leaning more toward the heading in Korean romanization form, Hyŏndae Kŭrup, and I would put Hyundai Group in the reference field.

 I doubt that we would treat Hyundai as an international body although there is no doubt about its globalized business scale.  I would think the official language is Korean, not both English and Korean.  And there are currently more than hundreds records in OCLC based on Korean publications containing either Hyondae Group or Hyundai Group both as a subject and/or a descriptive access point.  And I am sure many more items about the group will be published in the vernacular. My same search for non-Korean yielded far less.  

My only concern to change heading is that it is already established as Hyundai Group as Stephen pointed out and the conventional name part of the rule. But Korean reference sources have the name in Hangul as a primary.  If we leave the current heading as it is, I would add the Korean romanization in the reference field. 

With a few reasons I mentioned above, is it reasonable to change the already established heading to Korean romanization form?  There are a few other Korean conglomerate corporations that I want to work on once this issue is resolved.

Erica Chang
Cataloging librarian for Korean materials
Univ. of Hawaii Library




On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 5:44 AM Robert J. Rendall <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
ALA-LC romanization for 현대 그룹 (Hyundai Group) is Hyŏndae Kŭrup.  That doesn't currently appear in any authority records.

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 Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 11:35 AM Hostage, John <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

We probably need someone who reads Korean to look into this.  However, the Korean name given on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyundai_Group seems to end in a koreanization of the word “group”.  Google Translate renders it as hyeondaegeulub and even allows you to hear it.

 

The conglomerate was broken up into smaller companies, but it still has a website http://www.hyundaigroup.com/ and the name in the copyright statement is Hyundai Group Co., Ltd., on both the English and Korean pages.

 

------------------------------------------

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

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 10:51
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Asian conglomerate corporations

 

Thanks, Bob, this is a really helpful analysis. Looking again in OCLC I find that there are three English language-of-cataloging records which use "Hyŏndae Group" as the lead name in a 710 for three subordinate units, which adds to the evidence that the group should be established in LCNAF. (None of the subordinate units appear to be established subordinately or directly in LCNAF.)

 

The LCNAF already has its authority for "Hyundai Group." LC-NACO practice is not to change an existing heading, which would mean that the LCSH heading "Hyŏndae Group" will become a 410, unless there is reason to question the correctness of "Hyundai Group". In this case there may be--the South Korea-based corporate entities are generally established in the LCNAF with "Hyŏndae ..." as the lead term in the AAP, while related bodies elsewhere are entered under "Hyundai ...". But is "Hyŏndae Group" an appropriate transliterated name? The Korean, Japanese, and Taiwan conglomerates established in LCSH all end in "Group" suggesting it's an English term of art in this case, not part of a transliterated name.

 

If we're dealing with an international corporate body, RDA 11.2.2.5.3 and its associated LC-PCC PS would favor "Hyundai Group" for the LCNAF. Is it safe to assume that "Hyundai Group / Hyŏndae Group" is an international corporate body? We're way outside my comfort zone on this.

 

One other thought--though I can't add "550 Conglomerate corporations $z Korea (South)" to the LCNAF authority, I can add "368 $a Conglomerate corporations $2 lcsh" and 

"370 $c Korea (South) $2 naf". 

 

Thanks,

 

Stephen

 

On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 6:37 PM Robert Maxwell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

If my understanding of H405 is correct, there should only be one authority record for this entity. Group 2 entities, according to H405, can reside in either LCSH or the NAF, but it isn't "free choice": they "reside in the subject authority file if used only as subject headings"; they "reside in the name authority file if the headings are needed for use as descriptive access points".

 

So the question is, is "Hyundai Group" needed for use as a descriptive access point?

 

I don't find any PCC records on which Hyundai Group has been used as a descriptive access point but there are a couple of non-English language records where it has been so used (one of which is plausible under RDA as a descriptive access point, 901136444, it could be argued that this one fits under 19.2.1.1.1a, a work issued by the company describing its own resources), so I would think that you would be justified in asking LC to cancel the LCSH in favor of the NAR.

 

I also wonder, however, if the need to record an RDA relationship justifies this same thing? I think an argument could be made that the 510 in n  86133464  (the NAR for the founder Chŏng, Chu-yŏng, 1915-2012) is a descriptive access point, even though it doesn't reside in a bibliographic record. It is certainly an access point and it's not a subject heading.

 

Bob

 

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.

 


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Stephen Hearn <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2020 5:16 PM
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Asian conglomerate corporations

 

I've recently discovered that there are two authorities for the Hyundai conglomerate:

sh 85063653 - 110 2  Hyŏndae Group

no2008143102 - 102 Hyundai Group

LC's Subject Headings Manual, H 405, says that Asian conglomerate corporations are in Group 2, which means that they are "Named entities always established according to subject cataloging conventions with authority records that reside in either the name authority file or the subject authority file." Is that a free choice between authority files?

A number of other Asian conglomerates are established as 110 LCSH authorities with 550 fields for "Conglomerate corporations $z [country]" including Hyŏndae Group. That 550 would not be allowed under NACO rules. 

I was in the process of adding a 500 for the founder's name to the Hyundai Group name authority. Is that still an option if I'm proposing changes to the LCSH authority to add a 410 for Hyundai Group to it? I'm assuming there should be only one authority.

 

The Hyondae Group authority is coded 008/14=b, not for use as a name main or added entry. Is it  appropriate to add "510 27 $w r $i Founded corporate body of person: $a Hyŏndae Group $2 lcsh" to the founder's name authority if it should not be used as an agent?

 

I'm aware that I need to correct a number of missteps made before I discovered the subject authority. Any advice on how best to proceed is welcome.

 

Thanks,

 

Stephen

 

 

-- 

Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist

Data Management & Access, University Libraries

University of Minnesota

170A Wilson Library (office)

160 Wilson Library (mail)

309 19th Avenue South

Minneapolis, MN 55455

Ph: 612-625-2328

Fx: 612-625-3428

ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242


 

--

Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist

Data Management & Access, University Libraries

University of Minnesota

170A Wilson Library (office)

160 Wilson Library (mail)

309 19th Avenue South

Minneapolis, MN 55455

Ph: 612-625-2328

Fx: 612-625-3428

ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242