Location of a conference, etc.

6JSC/LC/34
July 31, 2015

Location of a conference, etc.

 

 

Submitted by Dave Reser, LC Representative

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Location of a conference, etc.

  1. John Myers says:

    A cleanly articulated proposal to address negative consequences of requiring “local place.”

  2. Robert L. Maxwell says:

    First, I agree with expanding the place instructions to allow recording higher levels than local place.

    However, I am concerned that we’re still thinking in terms of the access point when we are creating the instruction for the *element*. Clearly we should be able to record *any* appropriate related place in the element (370), local or not, and as many as we want. Similarly we should be able to record *any* related institution in the associated institution element (373), and as many as we want. This is (or should be) entirely independent of decisions about how to record information in the qualifier to authorized and variant *access points*.

    This comes out in the exceptions section under 11.3.2.3, where we’re told to record the name of an associated institution *instead* of a place name if the associated institution provides better identification. In the element we should be free to record either or both, not just one or the other. As written it sounds like we record place names OR institution names but not both. The exception is really geared to the *access point*, not the element. Ideally the exception should simply be removed from the “location” instruction (11.3.2.3), because it isn’t actually an exception (or shouldn’t be) for the element. Instructions for recording associated institution as an element are already found in 11.5. The “exception” language belongs with instructions for the access point, but not with those for the element.

    This problem also exists in the core language associated with 11.5. The core language is all about what belongs in the access point, and doesn’t make much sense to me as a statement of what we should be recording as part of the *element*. But in any case in 11.5 I don’t see any difference between the core statement for conferences and that for other corporate bodies. In both cases associated institution is a core element if it provides better identification than a place name. Would the result be changed if the language simply said:

    “Associated institution is a core element for corporate bodies if the institution’s name provides better identification than the place name or if the place name is unknown or cannot be readily determined.” Note 1: conferences, etc. *are* corporate bodies so they would be covered under this simpler statement. Note 2. “… and it is needed to distinguish the corporate body from another corporate body with the same name”, again, is totally about the access point, not the element, so I don’t see why this is given as part of the core statement for the element.

  3. Robert Bratton says:

    This proposal seems sensible. However, I do share Bob’s concerns about the language for recording associated places and institutions. I agree that we should be free to record any and all associated places and institutions. This should not be an “either or” decision based on what the AAP ends up looking like.

    I think at its core, this is a good proposal, but I would prefer the language to be altered to make it clear that we can record any and all associated places and institutions.

  4. Kathy Glennan says:

    Here’s a potential solution for the Exception at 11.3.2.3, which does not follow Bob’s suggestion above to simply remove this altogether (which might also be worth pursuing):

    1. Change it to an alternative.
    2. Rephrase to include the standard RDA wording for the first paragraph: Apply this instruction instead of or in addition to…. [for example, see 6.2.2.9]
    3. I think this approach would mean changing the final two paragraphs to simply present two options – a) record each; b) record the primary one

  5. Kathy Glennan says:

    I think the phrasing should be standardized when trying to indicate one or more place names.

    I prefer “place name or names” rather than “place name or place names”.

    I think the plural option was missed in the 1st paragraph of the exception in 11.13.1.8.1. Doesn’t it belong in the “if” clause as well as the first condition paragraph?

  6. Kathy Glennan says:

    I think that the 1st paragraph of the exception in 11.13.1.8.1 should reference 11.13.1.4.

  7. Kathy Glennan says:

    Should anything be added to 11.3.2.3 about preferring the most precise (local?) place name available?

    • Robert L. Maxwell says:

      Yes, I think this would be a good idea. Though again, in the element itself there’s no reason why one shouldn’t be able to record “Salt Lake City (Utah)” AND “Utah” AND “United States” if one wanted–it’s only the access point where we’re concerned about which one to record, where we have to decide on one and not another.

  8. Kathy Glennan says:

    So, 11.13.1.8.2 makes it clear that multiple place names are not part of the AAP for an ongoing conference.

    11.3.2.3 does not have this clarification — should it, or is that simply a function of the AAP?

    After all, this is a core element….

  9. Kathy Glennan says:

    Following up on Bob’s suggestion of removing the “institution” exception from the “location” instruction, the following could be substituted for the bulk of the exceptions in 11.3.2.3, as a regular paragraph:

    If the place name or names are not known or cannot be readily determined, record the name of an associated institution (see 11.5).

    Then, LC’s suggested 2nd paragraph in 11.3.2.3 exception & its alternative would need to be moved to 11.5.1.3, presumably as the final paragraph(s).

    That would leave only the final sentence in the current exception as an exception in 11.3.2.3:

    Record Online for a conference, etc., that was held online.

    By the way (and I’m sure it’s not worth bringing this up in a formal response), why is “online” capitalized in this case?

  10. Kathy Glennan says:

    As to Bob’s observation about the core element statement at 11.5, I think the situation is a bit different:

    In a nutshell (I realize this doesn’t capture RDA exactly):
    1. For conferences, associated institution is a core element if you don’t have a place name.
    2. For other corporate bodies, associated institution is a core element when needed to break a conflict [and yes, I think that can apply to preferred names, as well as to access points].

    That being said, I do think the core element statement could be simplified/shortened somehow.

  11. Tina Shrader says:

    I think that ALA should support this proposal overall.

    I also agree with Bob Maxwell that the instructions for elements should be separated from the elements for access points. You should be able record a place and/or associated institution in the appropriate elements without worrying about what goes in the access point. The instructions for constructing access points are separate and it is appropriate to have guidelines on element to choose in constructing the AAP.

  12. Elizabeth Shoemaker says:

    I agree that overall this is a good proposal. N.B. I believe there is a typographical error in an example. At the top of page 18, the World Cup example lists “Zimbabwe, Kenya”. The comma should be a semicolon:
    Zimbabwe; Kenya.

  13. Lori Robare says:

    From Adam Schiff:

    I don’t understand why LC is deleting every expedition example. Surely they fall under the “etc.” part and there should be some examples of them.

  14. Diane Napert says:

    Overall this appears to be a useful proposal. In particular I like the removal of “local” in several places and the addition of the alternative to 11.3.2.3
    I am partial to shortening/re-wording 11.5 if possible
    I also like Kathy’s idea of suggesting the use of the most precise location available in 11.3.2.3

  15. Lori Robare says:

    A few more comments from Adam Schiff:

    11.3.2.3:

    I would move the Selangor example after the Salzburg one. The more typical cases (that of local places) should be given first I think, since that’s primarily what catalogers would expect to find.

    In the last example, I disagree with the choice of place recorded. The Brazoria County Fair is held every year at the Brazoria County Fairgrounds, 901 Downing St., Angleton, Texas. Why isn’t Angleton, Tex. the appropriate place to record for this event? I would expect that only when a local place was not known or not appropriate would some other location be recorded. Perhaps a better example would be an event which truly isn’t held in any local place. One such example is the annual event Burning Man. It is held in the Black Rock Desert of northern Nevada, on U.S. Bureau of Land Management land in Pershing County. So perhaps either:

    Black Rock Desert, Nev.
    Preferred name for the event recorded as: Burning Man

    or

    Pershing County, Nev.
    Preferred name for the event recorded as: Burning Man

    I also suggest changing the explanatory text of the previous example from “Preferred name for the event recorded as: Salzburger Festspiele” to “Preferred name for the festival recorded as: Salzburger Festspiele”

    In the examples for multiple places, I think the last two examples should be moved to the top, as they are the most typical ones. The Olympic and Tour de France examples should come last.

    11.13.1.8.1:

    I don’t know what was wrong with the first example that it needed to be replaced, but the replacement is problematical:

    Weltkongress für Matriarchatsforschung (1st : 2003 : Luxembourg)

    The Luxembourg where this congress was held is most likely the city of Luxembourg, in which case the example should be

    Weltkongress für Matriarchatsforschung (1st : 2003 : Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

    In fact, the Getty Research Institute’s record for this in OCLC has it this way, while LC’s record has it as just Luxembourg. The title page says “1. Weltkongresses für Matriarchatsforschung 2003 in Luxemburg”, so it’s not clear which Luxembourg is meant. If the Clambake conference example is no longer acceptable (why?), then I think a different unambiguous example should be chosen.

    The Neshoba County Fair example is problematic for the same reason that the Brazoria County Fair is. The Neshoba County Fair is held in Philadelphia, Mississippi, according to the Fair’s website. Wikipedia does say that its location is “near Philadelphia, Mississippi,” but the address of the fair on the fair’s website is Philadelphia, so I would think that would be recorded as the location. If the Burning Man example above is acceptable, it could be used instead:

    Burning Man (Festival) (2014 : Black Rock Desert, Nev.)
    or
    Burning Man (Festival) (2014 : Pershing County, Nev.)

    Someone already pointed out the punctuation error involving a comma that should be a semicolon in this example:
    World Cup (Cricket) (8th: 2003 : South Africa; Zimbabwe, Kenya). There should also be a space before the first colon.

    Here’s a possible expedition example if the existing ones can’t be reworded to include a place:

    Anglo-Georgian Expedition to Nokalakevi (2001-2010 : Nokʻalakʻevi, Georgia)

  16. Lori Robare says:

    A few more comments from Adam Schiff:

    Some further thoughts on expeditions and RDA instructions for location of a conference, etc. I complained earlier about LC removing all the expedition examples in their revision proposal. Is this because location of a conference, etc. is a CORE element and expedition access points in AACR2 and the examples in RDA (plus NARs that I’ve seen in the NAF) rarely included a location? This raises a question about whether location should be a core element for expeditions. Consider these access points from the NAF:

    Abyssinian Expedition ǂd (1867-1868)
    Lewis and Clark Expedition ǂd (1804-1806)
    American Medical Research Expedition to Mt. Everest ǂd (1981)
    Birmingham Biological Expedition to Africa ǂd (1976)
    American Women’s Expedition to Antarctica ǂd (1992-1993)
    American Women’s Expedition to Annapurna I ǂn (1st : ǂd 1978)
    Cambridge Expedition to the East African Lakes ǂd (1930-1931)
    Indian Expedition to Antarctica ǂn (19th : ǂd 1999-2001)
    Joint Expedition of the British Museum and of the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania to Mesopotamia ǂd (1922-1934)
    Royal Danish Expedition to Arabia ǂd (1761-1767)
    Harriman Alaska Expedition ǂd (1899)
    Pinchot South Sea Expedition ǂd (1929)
    International Indian Ocean Expedition ǂd (1960-1965)
    Canadian Expedition to Study the Alpha Ridge, Arctic Ocean ǂd (1983)

    As you can see from these examples, the location of the expedition is usually not a local place, and often a geographic region, continent, ocean, etc. that is not a kind of place for which there are rules in RDA. In RDA must we record a place of some kind as location of conference, etc. and include that place in the access point(s) for the expedition? I suppose it could be done in most cases, but it will be problematic for catalogers. Some possible revisions to the above examples:

    Abyssinian Expedition ǂd (1867-1868 : ǂc Ethiopia)
    Lewis and Clark Expedition ǂd (1804-1806 : ǂc U.S.)
    American Medical Research Expedition to Mt. Everest ǂd (1981 : $c Nepal) or American Medical Research Expedition to Mt. Everest ǂd (1981 : $c Everest, Mount, China and Nepal) ???
    Birmingham Biological Expedition to Africa ǂd (1976 : $c Nigeria)
    American Women’s Expedition to Antarctica ǂd (1992-1993 : ǂc Antarctica) ???
    American Women’s Expedition to Annapurna I ǂn (1st : ǂd 1978 : $c Nepal) or American Women’s Expedition to Annapurna I ǂn (1st : ǂd 1978 : $c Annapurna I, Nepal) ???
    Cambridge Expedition to the East African Lakes ǂd (1930-1931 : ǂc Kenya; Uganda) or Cambridge Expedition to the East African Lakes ǂd (1930-1931 : ǂc Africa, East) or
    Cambridge Expedition to the East African Lakes ǂd (1930-1931 : ǂc Great Rift Valley) or Cambridge Expedition to the East African Lakes ǂd (1930-1931 : ǂc Great Lakes Region, Africa) ???

    I think you get the picture and the problems of requiring a place of any kind in expedition access points.

    Do we need an exception for expeditions to omit the location from the access points when it is not feasible or appropriate to give one? Or is it required? In either case, examples in RDA are needed, as catalogers are creating and coding as RDA expedition authority records without places in access points.

  17. Robert L. Maxwell says:

    Core elements are only recorded if they are applicable and readily ascertainable. I suppose it would always be applicable for an expedition (they *do* take place *somewhere*) but perhaps not always readily ascertainable. In which case they wouldn’t be recorded. I’m not sure I see what’s “problematic” about Adam’s examples above, though. I think they’re clearer with the addition of the place. Is it the fact that there could be more than one place chosen? That’s fine–remember we can record them all in the element, it’s just the access point that makes us choose one of them, and (in my opinion) if we think there would be confusion we can always record a different place in a variant access point.

Leave a Reply