6/JSC/ALA/19

From CCDA
Revision as of 12:45, 22 October 2012 by Robert J. Rendall (Talk | contribs) (Constituency Responses)

Jump to: navigation, search

6JSC/ALA/19 Proposed Revision of RDA 6.2.2 (Preferred Name for the Place)

To enter your comments in this click on the [edit] link for the section where you want to comment. You must be logged in to comment.

Please include in your comments:

  • Your name/liaison organization
  • Month/day/year

Never copy and paste over the entire original wiki document.

Constituency Responses

Proposal and responses

Summary: All constituencies were generally supportive of at least some of the provisions; most had specific comments.


Places in certain federations: Agreement on former USSR/Yugoslavia; ACOC disagrees on removing Malaysia. Need ALA position.

No strong feelings. If the JSC consults with the National Library of Malaysia, as ACOC suggests, and they express a preference for the current practice, we can probably continue to live with it. --Robert J. Rendall 12:19, 15 October 2012 (PDT)

ALA's position was stated in the proposal: that Malaysia should be removed from the instruction. --John Hostage 21:07, 15 October 2012 (PDT) (AALL)

I am coming late to this discussion, but I would like to point out that the authorized form of name for USSR is "Soviet Union". I think to be consistent with other names in this chapter, it needs to be changed to "Soviet Union".

I am surprised "Russia (Federation)" wasn't included in the RDA chapter 16.2.2.9. The jurisdiction (Federation) used as a qualifier (to distinguish between "Russia", LC-established name for the country that existed until 1917) presents some problems in establishing geographic places and corporate names too.

Larisa Walsh, CC:DA, Oct. 22, 2012

RDA instructions don't necessarily use the same form of country name as the LC/NAF; the instructions have United Kingdom and U.S.S.R. where we use Great Britain and Soviet Union. Russia (Federation) isn't in 16.2.2.9 because we don't follow the "federation" practice described here for Russia. --Robert J. Rendall 11:45, 22 October 2012 (PDT)


Places in the Republic of Ireland: Agreement; LC suggests that Isle of Man and Channel Islands can also be removed.

I think it's probably OK to remove the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man from 16.2.2.10 as long as one or both are added as examples under the new 16.2.2.11; note that LC's proposed text has the Isle of Man there. --Robert J. Rendall 12:19, 15 October 2012 (PDT)

If the Channel Islands and Isle of Man are removed from 16.2.2.10, the heading and appropriate text can be changed to say "United Kingdom" instead of listing all the countries. LC's comments on the Waterville example are a reflection on the LC/NACO authority file and the example currently in RDA, not on our proposal. --John Hostage 21:07, 15 October 2012 (PDT) (AALL)

Note that if we remove the explicit instruction to treat the Channel Islands as a top-level jurisdiction, all current headings for places in the Channel Islands will be affected, since there is no real jurisdiction called "Channel Islands" and the islands actually consist of two separate Crown Dependencies with no common institutions, the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey. The headings for Jersey and Guernsey will be unqualified, and all smaller places will be qualified by one or the other rather than by (Channel Islands). --Robert J. Rendall 14:15, 16 October 2012 (PDT)


Overseas territories and insular areas: General agreement, but concerns about terminology; ACOC prefers "Islands and island groups"; LC prefers "Overseas territories, dependencies, etc." Need ALA position.

As we've discussed earlier, limiting this practice to "islands" would not cover French Guiana or Gibraltar, which need to be included. I agree that using the US-specific legal term "insular areas" could be problematic and would be happy to adopt LC's suggested wording here. --Robert J. Rendall 12:19, 15 October 2012 (PDT)

No problem with LC's terminology, but I do not agree with reinstating island territories like Guam and Puerto Rico in the instruction for places in the U.S. Catalogers cannot be expected to determine the administrative status of every overseas territory, etc., in order to know which instruction to consult to determine its preferred name. --John Hostage 21:07, 15 October 2012 (PDT) (AALL)

I like LC's terminology the best -- Dominique Bourassa, CC:DA, Oct. 19, 2012


Qualifiers for Places in China: BL, CCC, CILIP, DNB, LC agree to the Optional Addition (LC with reservations); ACOC prefers that this be the general instruction, not an option. Several commented on need to clarify terminology. Comments?

I think this should remain an option, as we have proposed. I'm not sure whether ACOC wants this to be the general instruction for all countries (? for some small ones including a first level administrative division, if one even exists, would serve no useful purpose at all) or just for a prescribed list of countries, but I would not pursue either idea.
LC is correct that this could get complicated in some contexts and agencies applying this option will need to do so consistently following clear guidelines. If LC/NACO is unenthusiastic we may not see this in our own catalogs any time soon, but I think we should still provide the option in RDA. --Robert J. Rendall 12:51, 15 October 2012 (PDT)

Agree with Robert. In a shared authority file a common policy should be followed. One comment questioned the term "first-level administrative division." Whatever term is used, it could be defined in the glossary. I couldn't find an internationally accepted term, e.g. in ISO. We could change it to the term used in GeoNames, "First-order administrative division," defined as "a primary administrative division of a country, such as a state in the United States." --John Hostage 21:07, 15 October 2012 (PDT) (AALL)

I think it should remain an option. But I think it should be a general instruction for all countries. Some cataloging agencies might want to follow this option because it might have less of an impact on their own legacy data. -- Dominique Bourassa, CC:DA, Oct. 19, 2012


Abbreviations of place names: All agree to deletion of V.I.; ACOC, BL, CILIP, DNB agree to removing all abbreviations for place names, CCC and LC concerned about impact on legacy data.

Given that we're committing ourselves to investigating more far-reaching changes to the way we treat relationships among places sometime soon, I don't think now is the right time to revise current instructions in ways that that will require libraries to start making extensive global changes to replace abbreviated qualifiers in current headings. --Robert J. Rendall 11:32, 17 October 2012 (PDT)

I think we should look into eliminating abbreviations. I know it would have a huge impact on our legacy data and would involve a lot of work. But at the same time, keeping abbreviations means we are only think about our own legacy data. Other agencies might not use such abbreviations. In an international standard, it does not make sense to impose abbreviations that have an Anglo-American bias. That’s also why I feel that the instructions in 16.2.2.9.2, etc. are not good the way they are now. We should remove all Anglo-American bias in there. I understand that we cannot apply these instructions to every federation. But the instructions could be more of an option saying not to record the larger jurisdiction for certain federations. An LC-PCC PS would tell us here to follow this option for Canada, United States, etc. This would give the option for other agencies to apply these instructions to Federation that make sense to them. For example, Germany may want to apply this option to Germany and other Federations in Europe or in German speaking countries. At the moment the instructions put too much emphasis on the Anglo-American tradition. As soon as more agencies translate RDA, I am sure there will be more complaints with these instructions. -- Dominique Bourassa, CC:DA, Oct. 19, 2012


Further work: All were encouraging; BL, DNB and LC in particular expressed a preference for treating larger/smaller places as relationships.

ACOC expressed a general desire for a single set of instructions that could be applied to all countries -- in the interests of international consistency.

-- John Attig/JSC Rep 2012/10/10
http://wikis.ala.org/ccda/index.php?title=6/JSC/ALA/19&oldid=9102
wikis.ala.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2015-06
22756
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:VEDP6JLEGEE4JNNT33MO7MFCUOZGP4NE
<urn:uuid:2f2df452-0835-426c-9368-1f48ba4a8cc3>
2015-01-30T21:45:31Z
216.80.72.149
sha1:XTHUCMC3K6TGOZL4OS3C42SW6EV2U47D
<urn:uuid:33e82ad7-f9eb-485c-96fb-d7cb5fd50ede>
http://wikis.ala.org/ccda/index.php?title=6/JSC/ALA/19&oldid=9102
length
response
<urn:uuid:b41d4049-d421-4cec-9e04-96b4a347b68c>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-180-212-252.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2015-06
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web with URLs provided by Blekko for January 2015
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf