Slavic Cataloging Table of Contents | Index
Slavic Cataloging
Questions & Answers
By James L. Weinheimer

246 Question
Corporate Bodies at head of title
Personal Name Authorities question
Church Slavic Language
Forms of Names
Subject Headings R/SU/FSr
Classifying Museums
Which Language Form for a Name

That's a good question. LC has done it in several ways:

I've even seen: v V tomakh.
The latest trend at LC seems to be "v 5 tomakh", but they don't seem to have a standard policy and it's based on each cataloger.
I guess I'm terrible--I feel it's not a very useful reference, so I tend not to make one at all! I'm always expecting that after I catalog something "Sochineniia v piati tomakh" we receive numbers 6, 7 and 8! But when I do, I go with Russian usage, which would be "v 5-i tomakh" (which I prefer to "v 5. tomakh"). The others don't really make any sense.

You may also be interested in a decision as to whether this constitutes a subtitle or not:
... v ... tomakh

We don't have this item, so I'm making some guesses.

  1. If you want to handle the item as a serial, then it would probably be best to follow Harvard.
  2. If you want to handle the item as a series, then you can say
      245:00:Pushkin--nashe vse : Apollon Grigorev.
      440: 0:Res philologica ; vyp. 1
      500::At head of title: Ministerstvo ...
    For your series authority record, you can use
      130:0 : Res philologica
      430:0 : Uchenye zapiski Severodvinskogo filiala Pomorskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta imeni M.V. Lomonosova
The problem with the first choice is: you lose access to the individual piece (in this case, a collection of articles about Pushkin).
The problem with the second choice is: when you receive vyp. 2, it may not have an individual title, and you'll have to decide to either recatalog vyp. 1 to a serial, or make up some kind of title for vyp. 2.

It's a toss-up until you get more issues. I tend to catalog as a series and recat to a serial if necessary. At least this way, I have more information to base my decision on.

Harvard's decision is the "lazy" way--they can always add vyp.2 very easily, but if each one continues to have a special title, a *lot* of access is lost.

It depends a little on what you are doing.

  1. in full-level cataloging, see: Corporate Bodies at Head of Title in my manual. Trace the bodies only in the case of Title main entry. Follow the rule of 3 (trace 3 if there are up to three, otherwise, just the first, plus use the mark of omission for the extra bodies in the 500 note)
  2. in PCC, you don't need to put in the "500 At head of title:..." note, but you are still supposed to trace them normally.

This is the authority record for the author.
ID:NAFL8117039 ST:p EL:n STH:a MS:n UIP:a TD:19840322000000
KRC:a NMU:a CRC:c UPN:a SBU:a SBC:a DID:n DF:03-03-81
VST:d 06-17-84
040 DLCácDLC
100 10 Kantorowicz, Alfred,ád1899-
400 10 Kantorovich, Alfred,ád1899-
670 His Chapaev, 1939.
678 d. 1979

This is one of those old records (1984) that often have no information. Obviously, the cataloger at the time thought that the author of "Perspektivy Birobidzhana" was the same as the author of Chapaev in the NAF record. From a quick scan of the RLIN records (for Kantorowicz, Alfred, 1899-), it looks as if the author's primary language was German, esp. after glancing at the Harvard record MAHGAAI77855-B "Chapaev batalon dvadtsati odnoi natsionalnosti" which states that it is translated from German.

So, the Kantorowicz form is German, and the reference from the Russian form, Kantorovich, Alfred, 1899- is there, too. Everything seems to be in order. You have found an additional form from the Yiddish: Kantorovitsh, which could be added.

So, I think everything is OK. And thanks for pointing out the error in our record. I've fixed it, but I don't know how long it will take to show up in RLIN/OCLC.

Still, if you think that your guy and Kantorowicz, Alfred, 1899- are two different people, then you'll have to set up a new heading. As cataloger, you make that decision.

For descriptive purposes, we don't concern ourselves with which version of Slavic it happens to be. We simply use "chu" in the language code and follow the Church Slavic transliteration table (which I never have put online!). Also, you don't have to make any 500 notes for "skoropis" etc., but make a 246 3[blank] form for any "corrected" forms of the title.

For subjects however, you may want to consider the "--Texts" subdivision. Also, don't forget the recensions for many of the modern languages. Established currently are:

For examples, you can look in RLIN.

To be honest, I wouldn't spend too much time on some of these delicate points. The main idea is to let people find the materials, and too much complexity can confuse the user, or even hide things from them.

That's my opinion, anyway!

This is unfortunate, since if you could use LC headings whenever possible, you would automatically have an authoritative form plus several cross-references. I understand your concerns, however.
Still, you should attempt to replicate the spirit of the LC headings, creating your own headings and cross-references in some way. Also, I would always at least make a cross-reference from the LC heading.

These examples are international bodies, and according to AACR2 24.3B1, are handled in English, as they are in the Name Authority File now. AACR2 is very English-centric, but I would hesitate to use the Russian form, since it is an international body. Concerning abbreviations, the example of TSK RKP(b), shows the rule of: use the heading from the first item that comes across your desk. Right off the top of my head (I may be forgetting something!), the only reasons we change a heading are:

  1. if it is incorrect
  2. if it is in the wrong language.
otherwise, we make a cross-reference.

With varying forms from the same item, we go for:

  1. the prominent form, lacking that
  2. the fullest form.
The main idea is to set up a unique heading as quickly as possible, and make cross-references to it.

It all depends on how the corporate body presents itself. Grammar and presentation have a lot to do with it.

Asking why is always a tricky question. The reasons can be gathered only by examining the 670 fields. Your first example of the Obshchestvo is actually very strange
"670 Obshchestvo remeslennogo i zemledel. truda sredi evreev (Sov. Union). Materialy i issledovaniŽiža [MI], 1927: t.p. (O-va remeslennogo i zemledelcheskogo truda sredi evreev [TSK not given])
670 LC manual auth. cd. (usage only: Obedinennaia statistiko-ekonomicheskaia komissiia pri TSK Obshchestva remeslennogo i zemledelcheskogo truda sredi evreev)"

LC set up this heading only because they had to set up another body that was clearly subordinate to it (the Ob. stat.-ekon. komissiia found in the manual card), but they couldn't find a decent form only for the TSK, so they made it up. A difficult choice for the cataloger.

For TSK RKP(b), the first 670 is:
"Lenin, V. I. Pisma k rodnym, 1894-1919, 1931: t.p. (Institut Lenina pri TSK VKP(b))"
In this case, the cataloger set it up directly from the prominent form found on the t.p.

There are also certain words that automatically denote subordination. Refer to AACR2 24.13A Type 2, along with the associated RI, plus my own list (not exhaustive) of these words at: 24.13 type 2 words

Finally, governmental and religious bodies follow separate rules.

Instead of making up forms, we tend to follow usage. Another major rule is AACR2 24.12. Enter under its own name unless it's one of the types listed in 24.13, but you always make a reference.
Please note 24.13 type 6: a name that includes the entire name of the higher body. This must be the *authorized form* of the higher body (minus any geographic or other qualifiers). The last example is the key:
"BBC Symphony Orchestra
British Broadcasting Corporation. Symphony Orchestra."
This is because the authorized heading for the larger body is "British Broadcasting Corporation". If the authorized form were "BBC", the heading would become:
"BBC. Symphony Orchestra."

So, for the names you gave above, I would follow usage as found and add cross-references for the subordinate forms, as directed in 24.12.

I don't understand this.

Absolutely. These are also plurals. See below.

Since these are plural names, you can't set them up. (They don't have a name) If you wish, you could consider making an added entry for the larger body. Incidentally, I'm not sure, but your larger heading could be (in the NAF): Mifleget ha-poalim ha-sotsyal-demokratit ha-Yehudit Poale-Tsiyon be-Rusyah

To answer your question, whenever I'm faced with one of these questions, I always ask: "is it like birds?"
In this particular case, we can reason:

  1. This is an historical survey, so therefore, the headings should be tripled (it is like birds)
  2. This book deals with geographic names, which automatically go to the latest name of the place, so in this case, it should be "Former Soviet republics" (it is not like birds)
Both forms of reasoning are sound, I believe. Therefore, my own default is to triple in case of doubt. If experienced catalogers have that much trouble, it's obvious that it's beyond the abilities of regular users, so we should err in favor of additional access.

This was a difficult decision, where no one should be faulted--in this case the LC cataloger (Princeton accepts LC copy without revision, by the way) made a very reasonable decision based on the title "Placenames of Russia and the former Soviet Union." But if he had stopped to think about it, the problem would get more difficult. This is similar to my nightmare question of "Prehistoric peoples". I just feel fortunate that I haven't gotten a book on this, yet. I have no idea if it should be:
Prehistoric peoplesázRussia.
Prehistoric peoplesázSoviet Union.
Prehistoric peoplesázFormer Soviet republics.

They all look silly to me. Are prehistoric people like birds? (What a stupid question to have to ask!) So, to answer your question, I agree with you, especially with my "in case of doubt" rule.

This is Gosudarstvennyi khudozhestvenno-arkhitekturnyi dvortsovo-parkovyi muzei-zapovednik v g. Petrodvortse as in NAFL9258026. Strangely enough, there is no reference in this record from Petergof (only from Peterhof).

What makes this interesting is that if you look in the bib files, all books have been classed into special subjects (architecture, porcelain, etc.), but apparently, there have been no general works cataloged on all the collections of the museum.

I see no choice but to create a number after N3333 figuring on the "G" (for Gosudarstvennyi), say N3333.4 and then use Table N9. It's only an A-Z table, so everything can fit in. Fitting in a new philosopher is what I don't like!

The difference is that formerly, LC considered that Serbo-Croatian was a single language with two alphabets, as has always been considered by many US linguists. The treatment always followed RI1.7B2, e.g., "In Konkani (Kannada script)" or "In Konkani (Devanagari)".

About a year ago, LC decided that Serbo-Croatian is actually two languages: Serbian, which is in either cyrillic or roman, while Croatian is only in roman. (If I remember correctly someone on this list wrote that (s)he found an example of Croatian cyrillic!).

Additionally, there is the Bosnian issue which I won't raise. (I'm sure many people will thank me for that!)

I have never updated the Manual because I have been waiting for more information from LC with quick and easy guidelines telling us how to differentiate Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian. Princeton also gets very few materials in these languages, which has allowed me to take a breather!

It's a complicated issue. In my short course, I wrote:

Also, I have an example of architecture in the short course with a discussion. I mention that attempts to come up with hard and fast rules just don't seem to work, and if it is so difficult/impossible for an experienced cataloger to assign a specific subject, then it is certainly beyond the grasp of any user. The only answer is user-education to look under all the headings. For example, if there is a book: "The architecture of Russia", and the pictures are all before 1917, how can we assign "Soviet Union" or "Former Soviet republics"? Do we really want to say that "Architecture--Russia" is invalid?

Now, take precisely that same book published today, with an additional modern (2001) discussion of the architectural details: why should this version get a different subject heading? How can any user possibly understand that?

I have avoided globals for precisely the reason you mention--it's just too complicated.

I haven't dealt with this yet, but this is a good point, and I'm sure you're correct.

As always, I see problems: for art created during the Russian empire (not just Russian), which includes all the nationalities of Russia/Soviet Union. If we take the standard form from H1250:
650 -0 [art form with national, regional, ethnic or religious qualifier]--[place of origin]--[period subdivision].

We would have to use:

"Art, Soviet" never takes a chronological subdivision and means only the *area/nation* of the Soviet Union. It seems that it could not mean art that e.g. praises the Soviet Union (based on the reference for the heading "Art, Soviet":
360 -- headings for art of the individual nationalities of the Soviet Union, e.g. Art, Russian; Art, Ukrainian

this seems to say that "Soviet" means geographic area, as opposed to the ethnicity based on the heading "Soviets (People)":
680 -- Here are entered works on the citizens of the Soviet Union as a whole. (a strange heading!)


These are some good questions. See interspersed comments:

For name headings, the rule is: use the qualifier for the latest name during the lifetime of the body. In this case, Olonetskaia guberniia existed during both tsarist times and Bolshevik times. The name of the *jurisdiction* didn't change, only the name of the *overarching body*. Therefore, we use the latest name: Olonetskaia guberniia (R.S.F.S.R.). So yes, OCLC messed up. There are many errors in the NAF and in the databases.

For another, more meaningful example, you can think of Moscow (Russia). The laws of Moscow during the 1960's will get the same heading as those of today, since the name of Moscow never changed. But, for Saint-Petersburg, the case is more complex. (See: Use of the Heading Saint Petersburg as a Qualifier)
Since the name changed, along with the changes in jurisdictions, separate headings are made.

[Note that I mentioned that Leningrad's name was retained for a few days after the fall of the Soviet Union.]

Complication: *if* there were a guberniia that existed only in tsarist times (I can't think of one off the top of my head), the qualifier would be (Russia), e.g.
"TSaristskaia guberniia (Russia)".

This would create the confusing situation of the body being qualified by the *Russian Empire*, not by Russia (Federation), but the resulting heading would be the same since the qualifier of the qualifier drops. Of course, this could happen with any corporate body.

This is why I specified that the qualifier is never changed from (R.S.F.S.R.) to *Russia (Federation)*.
See: Russian Guberniias

One problem that I noticed soon after the breakup was that LC was making earlier-later headings for names of cities that did not change their names, but since they had become independent countries, the official language changed. I questioned this, and thankfully, they decided to change these to name changes.
See: Geographic Changes example of Homel/Gomel (Belarus) vs. Frunze (Kirghiz S.S.R.)/Bishkek (Kyrgyzstan)

You're right! Since the name of the Russian S.F.S.R. changed, it changes to Russia (Federation) but since the guberniia's name never changed, it doesn't change its qualifier. Besides, this is subject analysis which goes by different rules. The heading Russian S.F.S.R. is never valid as a subject. See SCM H830 for more information.

Yes, see Uniform Titles

What we have to do is find out if the name of the jurisdiction changed and when it did change. If the name of the guberniia or other jurisdictional name changed before 1917, it would retain the qualifier for the Russian Empire (since it never existed under the Communist regime). If the name did not change, we use the latest name in the qualifier.

Getting into geographic extent is more tricky. If the name did not change but the jurisdiction changed radically, it would be a consideration to somehow make a change in heading.
Personally, I would not do that.

It's important to remember that the examples of Russia/Soviet Union/Former Soviet republics do *not* follow the rule for subject analysis. The jurisdictions did not change radically, so there is no reason to use three headings for the same geographic area. But, they did.

I hate to differ wth the person, but an author should be established in the language he/she writes in.

According to 22.3B1, "If the name of a person who has used more than one language appears in different language forms in his or her works, choose the form corresponding to the language of most of the works." 22.3B2 (Names in vernacular and Greek or Latin forms) states that, "If a name occurs in reference sources and/or in the person's works in a Greek or Latin form, as well as in a form in the person's vernacular, choose the form most commonly found in references sources... In case of doubt, choose the Latin or Greek form for persons who were active before, or mostly before, AD 1400. For persons active after that date, choose the vernacular form."

In this case, so far as we know, this person writes only in Latin, there is no information from reference sources, so there is only one form of the name. Therefore this form (Latin) should be used for the heading. We aren't supposed to make up these things.

The accompanying RI22.3B1 has the 80% rule, which allows for a change in language of the heading "when 80% of the author's works are in that language" (one of the dumber rules, IMHO. I don't think too many catalogers keep track of this!).

There are also possibilities for arbitrary references when the author's native langauge could be written in a non-roman script (see: Arbitrary References). (In this case, the cataloger believes the author's original language is also in roman script--Czech or Croatian). This is one rule that I wish could be relaxed to allow other types of arbitrary references that could be useful, as in this case.

Slavic Cataloging Table of Contents | Index