Expanding RDA 6.29.1.3, Laws Governing More Than One Jurisdiction

RSC/ALA/2
21 July 2016

Expanding RDA 6.29.1.3, Laws Governing More Than One Jurisdiction

Abstract:
Add instructions to RDA 6.29.1.3, Laws Governing More Than One Jurisdiction, to address creating an authorized access point for a single law that governs multiple jurisdictions. Allow for naming the work by the enacting jurisdiction when known, and by title when the enacting jurisdiction is unknown or uncertain. Add examples to support the new paragraphs.

Submitted by: Kathy Glennan, ALA Representative

Responses:

Renate Behrens, Europe Region Representative
Dave Reser, Library of Congress (LC) Representative
Ebe Kartus, Australian Committee on Cataloguing (ACOC) Representative
Bill Leonard, Canadian Committee on Cataloguing Representative (CCC) Representative

 

Print Friendly

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Expanding RDA 6.29.1.3, Laws Governing More Than One Jurisdiction

  1. Chair says:

    Passing along a comment from Robert Rendall, former CC:DA chair:
    “I’m still troubled by the inconsistency of using Spain in the access point when Spain enacts a law for Puerto Rico and the Philippines, but using Puerto Rico in the access point when Spain enacts a law for Puerto Rico alone. As the LC response indicates, there are bigger questions here about how we should really handle “jurisdictions governed” in RDA (rather than just perpetuating legacy practices). If a quick fix is needed for this situation now, I think I prefer the approach suggested by CCC.”

  2. Kathy Glennan says:

    As noted by Robert Rendall (above), the community responses are mixed to this proposal. I need to know if ALA wants me to issue a revised proposal, and if so, what it should say.

    I will describe the different approaches below; please “reply” with comments on the specific approach.

  3. Kathy Glennan says:

    Approach #1: Just use the preferred title in the AAP

    The CCC response suggests that naming any law by the issuing jurisdiction goes against practices for similar types of law works, such as treaties involving multiple signatories.

    They suggest completely revamping the existing instruction:
    1. Make a new 1st paragraph about single laws governing more than one jurisdiction [use only the preferred title for the law in the AAP]
    [This solves the known vs. unknown problem raised in the ALA proposal.]

    2. Make the current paragraph the 2nd paragraph in the revised instruction, keeping the existing example.

  4. Kathy Glennan says:

    Approach #2: Keep the 1st of the two new proposed paragraphs

    The LC response suggests keeping ALA’s proposed paragraph relating to a single law from a single known enacting jurisdiction.

    They do not support adding the 2nd paragraph to address when the enacting jurisdiction is unknown or uncertain. (Modern laws shouldn’t be in this situation; 6.29.1.6 already deals with Ancient laws, certain medieval laws, customary laws, etc.)

    • Robert Bratton says:

      If it goes as LC suggests, I would propose that we add the example of “Le coustumier d’Aniou et du Maine” to the instruction about customary laws (6.29.1.6).

  5. Kathy Glennan says:

    FYI, I am working with Robert Bratton to create a revised proposal. The desired outcome from AALL’s perspective is to create the AAP for these laws using: 1) the title and 2) the names of the governed jurisdictions, enclosed in parentheses.

Leave a Reply