CC:DA/AALL/2010/1/Rev.: Places in Certain Federations

From CCDA
Revision as of 13:20, 19 July 2011 by Robert Rendall (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

To enter your comments in this click on the [edit] link for the section where you want to comment. Please have your comments ready to paste into the wiki by first writing them in a text editor, like Microsoft Word or Notepad. Don't keep a page open for more than 5 minutes.

Always log in before editing a section.

Never copy and paste over the entire original wiki document.

Deadline for entering comments: Wednesday 2011/07/27 -- Lipcan (per Robare email dated 2011/07/07)


General Comments

Proposed Revisions

16.2.2.4

The paragraph about islands and island groups splits up the instructions about punctuation. (Let's leave aside the whole problem of display getting mixed up into the rules...) But more than that, it just doesn't seem like it belongs. It's a detailed instruction regarding which larger jurisdiction to record, while 16.2.2.4 appears to be a general rule upon which the later rules elaborate. I believe this paragraph should become its own rule, and be numbered 16.2.2.x, somewhere after 16.2.2.8. Randall 6/20/11

16.2.2.8

What is the current status of the idea to stop abbreviating names of larger jurisdictions? Randall, 6/21/11


Since 16.2.2.8.1-16.2.2.8.4 are presented as alternatives to the basic rule in 16.2.2.8, examples of how places in Australia, Canada, U.K, and U.S. should be included within the examples give at 16.2.2.8, to illustrate what application of the rule and not the alternative would result in.

Therefore, I suggest adding these examples in 16.2.2.8:

Northern Territory (Australia)

Darwin (Australia)

Prince Edward Island (Canada)

Jasper (Canada)

England (Great Britain)

Bangor (Great Britain)

North Carolina (U.S.)

DuPage County (U.S.)

San Francisco (U.S.)

The treatment of British Isles doesn't make a lot of sense. Ireland has no higher jurisdiction. If you were applying the rule itself at 16.2.2.8 and not the alternative, what could you add to Ireland? Therefore, Ireland doesn't belong in this rule. I think this instruction should be limited to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, conventionally known as Great Britain. Not exactly sure about the Channel Islands either. They are "British Crown Dependencies" but are not part of the United Kingdom. So I'm not sure that Jersey (Great Britain) or Channel Islands (Great Britain) would be correct if the basic rule at 16.2.2.8 were applied.

Because there is more than one Oregon and more than one Cook County in the U.S., they don't make good examples in 16.2.2.8 (because you'd have to break the conflicts between the state of Oregon and several towns named Oregon in various states and between various Cook Counties around the country). So I substituted North Carolina (U.S.) and DuPage County (U.S.) since there is only one of each of those in the U.S. Therefore in 16.2.2.8.4.1 I suggest changing Oregon to North Carolina and in 16.2.2.8.4.2 I suggest changing Cook County (Ill.) to DuPage County (Ill.). I added San Francisco (U.S.) as a city example (no other conflict in the U.S., amazingly). Since Alexandria is a town in many states, I suggest changing the Alexandria (Va.) example to San Francisco (Calif.)

- Glennan (PCC) for Adam Schiff, 7/14/11

I like the approach and examples mentioned by Adam regarding the proposal. Wolverton, 7/17/2011

Given the difficulties in applying the general rule to places in these 4 countries and the fact that we neither want nor expect the general rule to be applied to places in these 4 countries, I propose that we not make it an alternative rule and go back to making the traditional treatment of places in these countries the default rule. See below for discussion of Ireland and Channel Islands. --J. Hostage 13:10, 18 July 2011 (CDT)

16.2.2.8.3 Places in the British Isles

Ireland: Given that the Republic of Ireland is adequately treated by the general instructions, should we propose to change the caption of this instruction to "Places in the United Kingdom" and remove text and examples relating to Ireland?

-- John Attig, 7/7/11

It would have to be "Places in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands" because those islands are Crown dependencies but not part of the U.K. Or maybe the inclusion of those islands in the rules is a legacy of the Anglo-American origins of the rules and could be considered too obscure to need mentioning in RDA. --Hostage, 7/8/11

Could we ask our CILIP and BL colleagues for their thoughts on this matter? And propose a caption according to their preference? Winzer, July 8, 2011

I don't think the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands should be omitted. I would defer to CILIP and the BL on any proposed change to the caption and scope of the rule. R.Rendall, 7/19/11

16.2.2.8.4

In 16.2.2.8.4.1, remove the word "province" from the instruction. - Glennan (PCC) for Adam Schiff, 7/14/11

This has been agreed to. It was just a "typo." --J. Hostage 13:12, 18 July 2011 (CDT)

16.2.2.9

In 16.2.2.9 (proposed), I think you still have a problem. If not applying the alternatives and applying 16.2.2.8 as written, then you have many conflicts like the ones I mentioned above. For example, taking Cook County or Alexandria as examples:

Applying 16.2.2.8 and not the alternative for U.S. means you have:

Cook County (U.S.) Alexandria (U.S.)

But there are many places with these names, so if you now apply 16.2.2.9, I think you get the following:

Cook County (Ill., U.S.) Alexandria (Va., U.S.)

This same situation would apply to the other alternative countries. If my interpretation is correct, I would suggest adding examples to 16.2.2.9 to cover conflicts for place names in the alternative countries when the basic rule is applied instead of the alternatives.

- Glennan (PCC) for Adam Schiff, 7/14/11


16.2.2.10

Islands

1. Is there any support for following RDA is applying the general instructions to islands? In other words, how important is it that offshore islands not be qualified by the name of the "home" country?

2. If special instructions for islands are needed, how do we indicate which islands merit special treatment? Can we come up with something more objective than "is located near the larger jurisdiction and is commonly associated with it"?

--John Attig, 7/7/11

Applying the general instructions to islands would be a big mistake, in my opinion. When a place name is qualified by a larger place, this serves to indicate where in the world that place is located. Generally, that coincides with the name of the jurisdiction that controls the place, but that shouldn't be the principal consideration. If the rule is that places in the United States are qualified by the state, by what logic would Puerto Rico be qualified by (U.S.)? Even if it is, what rule is applied to San Juan? Does an access point like 'Tahiti (France)' serve the user?

Islands tend to have different degrees of connection to the 'home' country. Some are colonies, dependencies, overseas territories, etc., and some are integral parts of the home country. Islands are more likely than other places to change their status and become independent or to change ownership from one country to another (witness Puerto Rico). Trying to reflect those statuses in access points would be neither easy nor useful.

I don't think there is a need for a more objective rule about which islands are qualified. There is a finite number of islands and the world, and there are probably established access points for all the ones that need it. Our goal should be to preserve the status quo in this case. --Hostage, 7/7/11


--- I don't think there is an easily constructed instruction that can be written for islands. I think it is part of the confusion of geographic names versus jurisdiction names. Would it help to just take out the part about location and just leave is commonly associated with a larger jurisdiction? Winzer July 8, 2011


I agree with Kevin (see above) that the placement of this section on islands doesn't make sense. In addition, the rule itself doesn't make much sense. The rule repeats LCRI 23.4B, but that rule interpretation doesn't give a good justification for adding the larger jurisdiction in some cases and not others. I don't understand why Crete and Sicily, for example, need to be qualified by the countries they belong to. I would suggest scrapping this whole section - i.e., not carry over the LCRI - and if needed make a rule that says that islands only need to qualified by a larger jurisdiction in case of a conflict. Rolla 7/12/11

I think this section is problematic as well – I don’t see a way to develop a rule that could be applied consistently to all islands. Wolverton, 7/17/2011

The rationale for the placement of the rule for islands was that it had to come before 16.2.2.8 (Places within a jurisdiction) because not all islands are within a jurisdiction. Some are jurisdictions themselves, and whether or not they are jurisdictions, we don't want to add a larger place to all island names. The rule belongs in 16.2.2.4 because it is about recording the preferred name of the place.

If this is not a satisfactory location, we need a specific recommendation about where it should go.

The proposed rule has been successfully applied for many years now. I'm not aware of any complaints about its application. The proposal was only to codify existing practice. --J. Hostage 13:38, 18 July 2011 (CDT)

I agree with the intent here to codify current practice, which allows some leeway for the use of cataloger's judgment in determining whether adding the larger place is desirable. For islands like Crete and Sicily, I would not want to see a change in practice (why would we want to have Calabria (Italy) but not Sicily (Italy)?). And Tahiti (France) is also not reasonable. Places like Svalbard or Madeira seem like borderline cases to me, and I'm happy to rely on judgment for those. R.Rendall, 7/19/11
http://wikis.ala.org/ccda/index.php?title=CC:DA/AALL/2010/1/Rev.:_Places_in_Certain_Federations&oldid=7566
wikis.ala.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2014-42
26662
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:MRJGPKVG4LLJFDYJ4LBAUT2AAMQTLGRS
<urn:uuid:c908dc38-79f8-4a43-884d-1a767c2fcd70>
2014-10-26T03:18:24Z
216.80.72.149
sha1:24NM6HILGHFTF7BDFFIN3EOPW2ZENI4C
<urn:uuid:9c2a855f-721f-46ab-aa02-5f86edeaeaa4>
http://wikis.ala.org/ccda/index.php?title=CC:DA/AALL/2010/1/Rev.:_Places_in_Certain_Federations&oldid=7566
length
response
<urn:uuid:d82245f5-135b-4464-b215-8212d0f2d408>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-16-133-185.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2014-42
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web with URLs provided by Blekko for October 2014
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf