Proposal: Revision to RDA 16.2.2.8 (Place Names for Jurisdictions)

Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Proposal: Revision to RDA 16.2.2.8 (Place Names for Jurisdictions)

  1. John Myers says:

    This seems to be a pro forma exercise to comply with the requirements of 6JSC/Policy/1. The JSC had almost approved it as a Fast Track Proposal before running up against Policy/1. It has two minor changes from its Fast Track form, which seem to be further improvements. Do we need anything more than “ALA thanks LC for its efforts to convert the previous Fast Track Proposal for 16.2.2.8 into a full-fledged proposal, and concurs”?

  2. Kathy Glennan says:

    I’m not a great fan of the added phrase “when recording the preferred name”. This phrasing does not occur in RDA anywhere at the moment, and this is a revision to a sub-instruction under 16.2.2, Preferred Name for the Place. Is it needed at all?

  3. Kathy Glennan says:

    In some ways, this instruction seems backwards to me. Shouldn’t the primary instruction be to include the term indicating the type of jurisdiction? That would make the if/then paragraph an exception.

    This could look something like:

    When recording the preferred name for a place, include a term indicating the type of jurisdiction.

    Exception:
    If:
    the first part of a place name is a term indicating a type of jurisdiction
    and
    the place is commonly listed under another part of its name in lists published in the language of the country in which it is located
    then:
    omit the term indicating the type of jurisdiction.

    Thoughts?

  4. Robert Bratton says:

    What RDA 16.2.2 is intended to address is: when do you include vs. omit a term indicating a type of jurisdiction in the preferred name for a place. I would rename 16.2.2 as: “Place Names Indicating a Type of Jurisdiction.” That is what a person scrolling through 16.2… would be seeking. I find calling it “Terms Indicating Types of Jurisdiction” potentially confusing.

    I like Kathy’s idea of changing the order of the instructions.

  5. Robert Bratton says:

    Thinking about it as a user of RDA, when would I need to refer to RDA 16.2.2.8? It would be when I’m trying to figure out how to determine the preferred place name for a place name that has a type of jurisdiction embedded in its name.

    If you expand 16.2 in the Toolkit, I think “Type of Jurisdiction” would look weird and out of place. I know that something like “Place Names Indicating a Type of Jurisdiction” is much wordier, but it seems more clear. That’s just my opinion.

    • Dominique Bourassa says:

      I think Robert is right. Using the heading “Type of Jurisdiction” in this context would be strange. It would make it seem that this section is about additions to authorized access points representing places or about recording other designations associated with places. I prefer Robert’s suggestion “Place Names Indicating a Type of Jurisdiction” even though it’s much longer. I feel it really says what the section is about.

  6. Dominique Bourassa says:

    LC says this proposal has no impact on chapters other than 16, but if this proposal is accepted, the links to 16.2.2.8.1 and 16.2.2.8.2 in the index will need to be removed and/or replaced by links to 16.2.2.8: see Jurisdiction, type of, added to government names (link to 16.2.2.8.2) and Jurisdiction, type of, place names (link to 16.2.2.8.1).

  7. Tracey L. Snyder says:

    I agree with Kathy’s suggestion to flip the two parts of the instruction (making the current first part an exception to the current second part) and Robert’s suggestion for the caption of the instruction.

Leave a Reply