Bob Maxwell wrote: "Or perhaps we should record just "Russia" in 370? Is this a case like Adams (Iowa : Township), where we would just record "Adams, Iowa" in 370, dropping the type of jurisdiction qualifier (by NACO policy)?"
In AACR2, rule 24.4C1 explicitly asked not to include "the additions to names of places prescribed in 24.6 [e.g., type of jurisdiction] when the names of these places are used to indicate the location of corporate bodies." I could not find a similar instruction in RDA that would apply to places recorded as attributes of persons, families, corporate bodies, etc. Do you mean to say that it is NACO policy to continue this practice under RDA even though it seems to contradict RDA instructions? Thanks, Daniel Paradis Bibliothécaire Direction du traitement documentaire de la Collection patrimoniale Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec 2275, rue Holt Montréal (Québec) H2G 3H1 Téléphone : 514 873-1101, poste 3721 Télécopieur : 514 873-7296 daniel.para...@banq.qc.ca<mailto:daniel.para...@banq.qc.ca> http://www.banq.qc.ca<http://www.banq.qc.ca/> _____ De: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access de la part de Robert Maxwell Date: jeu. 2012-10-11 19:32 À: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Objet : Re: [RDA-L] 370 Russia, Federation ? Good question, Adam. I assume it's because people have gotten into their mind that the rule is "remove the parentheses and replace with a comma" but of course even though that usually works that isn't actually what is called for in the last paragraph of 16.2.2.4, which says to "precede the name of the LARGER PLACE by a comma." As you observe "Federation" isn't the name of a larger place, so presumably it should be recorded "Russia (Federation)" in 370. Or perhaps we should record just "Russia" in 370? Is this a case like Adams (Iowa : Township), where we would just record "Adams, Iowa" in 370, dropping the type of jurisdiction qualifier (by NACO policy)? This also has bearing on qualifiers used with corporate bodies. I've been looking for examples in the authority file of "Russia" being used as a qualifier on a corporate body and I see inconsistency-in some cases people have used "(Russia)" e.g. Evrazii?skii? sovet po standartizat?s?ii, metrologii, i sertifikat?s?ii (Russia); in others they've used "(Russia (Federation))", e.g. Don Cossack Chorus (Russia (Federation)), both recent LC records. The majority seem to be just "(Russia)". In any case, I don't think there's any justification for "Russia, Federation" in 370. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian Genre/Form Authorities Librarian 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. -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 4:19 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] 370 Russia, Federation ? I'm seeing a lot of records where 370 $c or $e has the following recorded: Russia, Federation Is there any reason why people are not recording this in the authorized form of Russia (Federation)? Most of the records (and they are numerous) were created by LC or U Chicago catalogers. I'm trying to figure out what might cause a cataloger to record this place by replacing the parentheses with a comma. --Adam ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
