Corporate Bodies at head of title
Personal Name Authorities question
Church Slavic Language
Forms of Names
Subject Headings R/SU/FSr
Which Language Form for a Name
What would you put in 246 (if you want so) if your title is:
Sobranie sochinenii v shesti tomakh
That's a good question. LC has done it in several ways:
245 ... v piati tomakh
246 (740) v 5 tomakh
v 5-i tomakh
v 5. 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
My title page:
- Ministerstvo obshchego i professionalnogo obrazovaniia Rossiiskoi Federatsii. Pomorskii gosudarstvennyi universitet imeni M. V. Lomonosova. Severodvinskii filial
- Res philologica
- "Pushkin -nashe vse"
- (Appolon Grigorev)
- Uchenye zapiski Severodvinskogo filiala Pomorskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta imeni M. V. Lomonosova.
- Vypusk 1.
- Arkhangelsk, Izd-vo Pomorskogo gos. universiteta, 1999.
"Etim sbornikom nauchnykh statei nachinaetsia periodicheskoe izdanie Uchenykh zapisok SF PGU im. M.V. Lomonosova. Ego nazvanie -- "Res philologica"".I would be very thankful for any thoughts, advice, etc. Sbornik contains collection of articles written by faculty members, and devoted to Pushkin.
We don't have this item, so I'm making some guesses.
- If you want to handle the item as a serial, then it would probably be best to follow Harvard.
- 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 ...
130:0 : Res philologica
430:0 : Uchenye zapiski Severodvinskogo filiala Pomorskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta imeni M.V. Lomonosova
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.
- Here is my new question:
what if I have six long corporate bodies at head of title? Do I need to put all of them in 500 and then in 710?!
It depends a little on what you are doing.
- 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)
- 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.
I was wondering if you could help me with the following problem.
I am copy cataloguing titles for a new project on Birobidzhan and came
across problems in establishing an authority record for one of the authors,
There are four titles which I think to be written by this person (I'm sorry for omitting the diacritics):
* Perspektivy Birobidzhana / A. Kantorovich.
* Za sotsialisticheskii Birobidzhan / A. Kantorovich.
* Birebidzshan in istikn moment / A. Kantorovitsh.
* Tsveyter 5-yor plan far Biro-Bidzshan / fun A. Kantorovitsh.
The predominant form used in RLIN is "Kantorovich, A.", but I also came upon a record from the Princeton University Library (for "Perspektivy Birobidzhana") that has as a main entry "Kantorowicz, Alfred, 18990" (though I guess this must be "Kantorowicz, Alfred, 1899-").
Could you perhaps provide some more information on this Alfred Kantorowicz? Is he the author of the four books mentioned above? Why was his name established in this form? Is he of Polish origin?
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
RFE:a CSC: SRU:b SRT:n SRN:n TSS: TGA:? ROM:? MOD: LCT:
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.
- In the near future I will be cataloguing early printed cyrillic books (from
the 16th and 17th centuries). Most of these books are written in
Old-Russian, Old-Ukrainian or Old-Byelorussian (if it can be determined at
all). The books are not printed in 'grazhdanskii shrift', but in
'skoropis'', 'ustav' or 'poluustav', so I can't use the romanization table
for Russian. Should I use the romanization table for Church Slavic (as
seeing the example in Princeton's Slavic Cataloguing Manual)?
I am a bit confused on this: I always thought Church Slavic was the same as Old Church Slavic. Six or seven years ago I followed a course on Old Church Slavic as part of my studies, and though I have forgotten most of it (at that moment I thought it was not so important, for my special field was literature, not linguistics) it is my understanding that I learned Old-Bulgarian, written either in glagolitic script or in some early cyrillic script. So, my question is: does the romanization table for Church Slavic also apply for Old-Russian, Old-Ukrainian or Old-Byelorussian texts in 'skoropis'', 'ustav' or 'poluustav' scripts?
Do you also know if there are transliteration tables from 'skoropis'', 'ustav' or 'poluustav' to modern cyrillic (Russian) alphabet?
Should I include 'skoropis'', 'ustav' or 'poluustav' in the language note (MARC21 field 546 |b)?
Should I make a uniform title for the modern spelling (if there is no other
uniform title like 'Hirmologion. Church Slavic' in the example in the
Princeton Slavic Cataloguing Manual)?
The PU Slavic Manual says to "make an added title reference for the actual form of the title". I suppose the actual form of the title should be put into MARC21 field 246. Am I right?
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:
Church Slavic language--East Slavic recension
Church Slavic language--Russian recension
Church Slavic language--Ukrainian recension
Church Slavic language--Romanian recension
Church Slavic language--Macedonian recension
Church Slavic language--Croatian recension
Church Slavic language--Serbian recension
Church Slavic language--Bulgarian recension
Church Slavic language--Czech recension
Church Slavic language--Russian recension--Texts.
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!
- I am making available on cd-rom an archival collection "Organizatsii
Poalei-TSion v SSR". The cd-rom contains two databases: one in Russian and
one in English (being a translation of the Russian database). The databases
are based on the inventories made by the holder of the archive (TSentral'nyi
partiinyi Arkhiv, Moscow).
- they cannot always be used in a Russian (cyrillic alphabet) database
- sometimes they give 'too much' information (e.g. geographical names that are not relevant in the context of this archival collection, such as 'Soviet union')
- they are not consistently buil?
One of the things I have to do is to authorise the corporate names that were chosen as access points. We decided not to use the LC name authority files, because
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.
and moreover, most names are not to be found in the LC name authority files
and I have to make them up anyway.
I am trying to make a logical and consistent set of corporate names for this archival collection. Unfortunately it is not possible to do 'real' authority work like determining the name of the corporate body from items issed by that body in its language. The only information I have are the inventories compiled by the TSentral'nyi partiinyi Arkhiv (in 1987) and they are not consistent nor always reliable. I hope you can give me some help, because I'm finding it difficult to make up my mind what to do. At this moment there are three kinds of corporate names in the database:
- names of 'real' corporate bodies, often abbreviated and not always consistently used
- names that could be parts or subdivisions of a higher corporate body
- names or terms that are not corporate bodies at all.
I can't trace whether the body itself used abbreviations or not, so I thought I had better replace abbreviations by the full form, because this form provides more information. Fortunately a list in which all abbreviations are written in full is provided.
What should I do with abbreviations like Komintern, Profintern? Should I use the full form, even if the abbreviation is more commonly known?
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:
- if it is incorrect
- if it is in the wrong language.
With varying forms from the same item, we go for:
- the prominent form, lacking that
- the fullest form.
- I suppose I should enter subordinate bodies subordinately.
It all depends on how the corporate body presents itself. Grammar and presentation have a lot to do with it.
Examples in the
LC name authority files are rather confusing on this point. In the following
example "TSentralnyi komitet" is entered subordinately:
110 20 Obshchestvo remeslennogo i zemledel'cheskogo truda sredi evreev
(Soviet Union). $b TSK.
110 20 TSK RKP(b)
510 20 $w a $a Rossiiskaia sotsial-demokraticheskaia rabochaia partiia
(bol'shevikov). $b TSentral'nyi komitet.
510 20 $w b $a TS VKP(b)
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
"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.
- I do not know how to handle geographical statements in certain names in the
database, e.g. "Bershadskaia organizatsiia ESDRP (Poalei-TSion) Podol'skoi
gubernii" or "Khersonskaia organizatsiia Odesskoi gubernii EKSRM - IUgend
(Poalei-TSion)" or "Glavnyi komitet ESDRP (Poalei-TSion) v Moskve". It is
not clear whether the geographical statement forms part of the corporate
name or not. Should I use corporate names like "Evreiskaia
sotsial-demokraticheskaia rabochaia partiia (Poalei-TSion). Bershadskaia
organizatsiia Podol'skoi gubernii"?
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.
- In some records a corporate body is entered both with subordinate body and
without. Is it necessary to add the heading "Evreiskaia
sotsial-demokraticheskaia rabochaia partiia (Poalei-TSion)" when you already
have "Evreiskaia sotsial-demokraticheskaia rabochaia partiia (Poalei-TSion).
I don't understand this.
- Ad 2
These are 'names' like "Narkomaty", "Uchreditel'noe sobranie" and "Mezhvedomstvennye komissii". I am afraid in most cases it won't be possible to find out to which higher corporate body these subordinate bodies belong. I wonder whether I should delete these names or not.
Absolutely. These are also plurals. See below.
- Ad 3
There are 'names' like "sionistskie i dr. evreiskie organizatsii" or "evreiskie partii v Palestine" or "mestnye organizatsii ESDRP (Poalei-TSion)". My first idea was to delete all these names. But later on I thought that perhaps I should better leave them. All corporate names are in a field called "Organization". Would it be a problem if people could find in this field not only names, but also subjects (like "narkomaty" or "sionistskie organizatsii")? I think a field like "Organization" may cover types of organizations as well as names (the more so as the database doesn't contain a "Subject" field).
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
- It's not fair of me to ask without your having the book in hand, but I'm a
little curious about the item on NJPG96-B34697, which I'm trying to
catalogue as I write this. (Well, not exactly as I write this.) I believe
that this is a record that went into your database before the Slavic
Cataloguing Manual came into existence.
I'm tempted to triple up the subject headings, i.e.
650 Names, Geographical$Russia
650 Names, Geographical$Soviet Union
650 Names, Geographical$Former Soviet Republics.
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:
- This is an historical survey, so therefore, the headings should be tripled (it is like birds)
- 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)
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 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.
- I have a book on the various art collections of the
Gosudarstvennyi muzei-zapovednik Petergof, located in
Petrodvorets, Russia. I am having trouble coming up with a
call number. Copied from Cataloger's Desktop, 2000:issue 4:
N3331 Penza. Penzenskaia kartinnaia galereia (Table N9)
N3332.5 Perm' (City). Khudozhestvannaia gallereia (Table N9)
N3333 Petrodvorets. Ermitazh (Table N9)
N3335 Polenovo. Gosudarstvennyi muzei-usad'ba V. D. Polenova (Table N9)
N6501-7414 Special countries (Table N5 modified)
Add country number in table to N6500
I'm tempted to fudge Petergof in as N3334 and subdivide by Table 9. Other options include simply making it the same as Ermitazh, N3333; or putting it in the local DK area (but this item is about the art collections).
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!
This is more an observation than a problem. However, I would like to ask
other catalogers if they already dealt with this problem in their work. A
while ago, we discussed language codes for Yugoslavia that the LC has
implemented, but I do not think that we noticed that Serbo-Croatian
(Cyrillic and roman) were discontinued. Instead LC implemented codes scc
for Serbian and scr for Croatian. Before, we had to supply language notes
In Serbo-Croatian (Cyrillic) or Serbo-Croatian (roman). In more recent
records, I see that catalogers, including LC, use various notes, e.g. In
Serbian (Cyrillic), etc. It seems to me that there is a lot of confusion in
that matter. It is obvious that language codes clearly differentiate that
Cyrillic alphabet is Serbian (scc) and roman alphabet (scr). Is it correct?
If it is than we do not need 546 notes about alphabets as we used to. I
asked our cataloging liaison with LC, but he did not know if there is any
written explanation about it from LC. Does anyone know anything about it?
Maybe, catalogers from LC can explain it to us? I personally think, that we
should stop using 546 notes if we use language codes in their new meaning.
I checked the Princeton Slavic Manual, but it does not reflect these
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!
- I am going around in circles on the
issue of books about architecture in Russia. I can't seem to pin myself
down into considering architecture historical or non-historical. Here is
what I have come up with:
- works on the philosophy, process, teaching, skill, or art of architecture are non-historical and should be geographically subdivided according to their publication date
- works on buildings or groups of buildings or the general architecture of a particular place should be geographically subdivided according to the latest correct geog subdivision
It's a complicated issue. In my short course, I wrote:
"Certain questions remain open. It appears that the subject headings Sculpture,
Medieval--Soviet Union or Sculpture, Medieval--Former Soviet republics are
valid, since Soviet Union or Former Soviet republics could be the area where the
art currently resides. But, the heading Philosophy, Medieval--Soviet Union would
appear to be nonsensical (philosophy doesn't "exist" in the same sense as a
sculpture) and must always be Philosophy, Medieval--Russia.
"What about Prehistoric peoples? Or Dinosaurs? What if these books were published in 1860? or 1960? or 1997? Each subheading looks suspicious. In these cases, the subjects are definitely historical, but going with the date of publication seems incorrect. Still, Prehistoric peoples--Soviet Union seems no more incorrect than Birds--Soviet Union. What if the book on prehistoric men is a compilation of research beginning from the last century until the present?
"With current practice, if we wish to retain consistency in subject heading practice, there seems to be no escape from doubling or tripling such headings. Each case must be reconsidered on its own merits.
"The difficulty in assigning headings pales in comparison with that of users finding the headings. In the above case of birds, users may find Birds--Soviet Union and feel (justifiably) that they have found everything on this subject. Yet, they have overlooked Birds--Russia and Birds--Former Soviet republics. The same occurs with Composers along with many other headings.
"Users must be taught to search under each heading."
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 am in the process of changing
our art headings and I have gotten up to the Soviet Union. It seems
logical to me to change the heading:
Art, Modern -- 20th century -- Soviet Union
that is, to drop the chronological subdivision. You make it clear in the Short Course that this is appropriate for historical headings, but is it right in this case, too?
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, Russian" [which would mean both art of Russian ethnicity and of the region/nation of the Russian empire before 1917].
- So, "Art, Russian" could have a chronological division:
"Art, Russian--[pre-1917]" means both ethnicity and Russian empire. "Art, Russian--20th century" and later means ethnicity.
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!)
- Art, Soviet = the only possibility
- Art, Russian--20th century (and later) = "Russian" here means ethnicity synonymous with Russia (Federation)
- Art, Russian--pre-1917 = (there is no "Art, Russian--1801-1917", so I guess we would figure "Art, Russian--19th century" and before) = art of the empire and more specifically, ethnicity.
These are some good questions. See interspersed comments:
In short, our head of serials cataloging came to me today with a series of
questions concerning guberniias.
I read your advice in your manual. Do I understand correctly? that the qualifier (R.S.F.S.R.) should never be changed to the qualifier (Russia)? The manual says this is true for "Soviet" guberniias. Is there such a thing as a "non-Soviet" guberniia? I guess I am having some confusion as well between name and subject usage. If something was published strictly in Tsarist times by a guberniia (say a collection of laws), would the name entry still be qualified by (R.S.F.S.R.)?
We have an example, where the authority record gives "Olonetskaia guberniia (R.S.F.S.R.)" (n-85311307), but OCLC seems to have flipped subject headings in bib records to "Olonetskaia guberniia (Russia)" (e.g., OCLC #17572555). Has OCLC messed up?
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),
"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
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)
Your manual does show indirect subdivision in subject headings going
through "Russia (Federation)". Is it possible then to have headings like:
650 0 Fishes |z Russia (Federation) |z Kakaia-to guberniia.
651 0 Kakaia-to guberniia (R.S.F.S.R.) |x Environmental conditions.
on the same record???
I mean, I can believe it, with how complex things are getting subject-wise behind the old Iron curtain, but I really want to be sure.
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.
And then name vs. subject usage. My understanding is that you would use
the name heading as it was for the time when the title was published, that
with names it would be considered as for any other corporate body name
Yes, see Uniform Titles
But for subject headings, you would usually use the latest name.
This works out for cities normally ("Saint Petersburg (Russia)" now and
not "Leningrad (R.S.F.S.R.)"), and I think I understand the Russia vs.
Soviet Union vs. Russia (Federation) vs. Former Soviet republics when
things are on the national scale. BUT, what about the in-between entities
such as guberniias? Do we need to determine their actual geographic extant
before we can assign subject headings? To know if a new name is really the
same entity as the old name? Are there more specific guidelines anywhere?
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'm cataloging a Latin thesis, dated Vienna 1815, which gives the author's
name as Carolus Bratasseviz, and describes him as "austriacus viennensis".
I haven't found any record for him, but did find some records for an author
called Eduard Bratassevic [with the diacritic that looks like an acute
accent over the c] I tried searching the online catalogs of the Czech and
Croatian national libraries for this surname, but no luck. Given that
you're supposed to establish names in the vernacular, I've decided to use
Bratassevic [with diacritic] and provisionally make his first name Karl.
But I just wanted to ask you if you can tell from the form of the surname
what his ethnicity would be, and then maybe I should use the corresponding
form of his first name - Karel or whatever? On the other hand if he's
self-described as Austrian maybe you stay with the German form at that
date; that seems to be how it works with Eduard, who wrote later in the C19
(unless that's also the form of the name in some Slavic languages).
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.