Heidrun
The same distinction is in Chapter 8, applicable to authorized and variant
access points in general.
8.6 Authorized Access Points Representing Persons, Families and Corporate Bodies
"If two or more persons, families, or corporate bodies have the same or similar
names, include one or more additional identifying elements in the access point
representing the person, family, or corporate body."
8.7 Variant Access Points Representing Persons, Families and Corporate Bodies
"Make additions to the access point, if considered important for
identification."
So that suggests that RDA does not require variant access points to be unique
(neither does NACO). On the other hand, it's a bit perplexing, because when
else would you decide that an addition was "important for identification",
except when the name was not unique? Are some non-unique names more important
to distinguish than others?
There are optional instructions in 11.13.1 subsections for making additions in
an authorized access point "if the addition assists in the identification of
the body" (e.g. 11.13.1.3), but these all apply to unique names, and assume
that a non-unique name will always be qualified.
So perhaps this should be tidied up and made more logical.
Regards
Richard
_________________________
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library
Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: 03 November 2013 10:29
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Variant access points for corporate bodies: Do they need to be
unique?
There is an interesting difference between the instruction on authorized access
points for corporate bodies and that on variant access points:
11.13.1.1 General Guidelines on Constructing Authorized Access Points to
Represent Corporate Bodies
"Make the additions specified at 11.13.1.3–11.13.1.7 if they are needed to
distinguish access points representing different corporate bodies with the same
name."
11.13.2.1 General Guidelines on Constructing Variant Access Points to Represent
Corporate Bodies
"Make additions to the name, if considered important for identification.
Apply the instructions at 11.13.1.2–11.13.1.8, as applicable."
For the AAP, RDA says very clearly that it must be unique. But for VAPs, the
rule seems a bit vague. I wonder whether it is vague on purpose.
In the "Royal Academy of Music" example in 11.13.2.1 the place has obviously
been added in order to distinguish between VAPs of different corporate bodies,
which otherwise would have been identical. But as we all know, examples in RDA
are illustrative only. So if somebody decided that the place wasn't "important
for identification", he or she might feel free not to add it, and still be
within the bounds of RDA.
Apart from acronyms and initialisms, I think that VAPs for corporate bodies
should always be unique, i.e. neither identical to the AAP or VAP of some other
corporate body.
What are your thoughts on this matter?
Heidrun
--
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
