OK, as a cataloger who has been confused by the jurisdictional/place name
distinction, I'm going to jump in here. 

Whether "England" means the free-floating geographic entity or the country
is not quite unknowable -- it depends on the MARC codes that accompany it. 

The brief answer is this: a field used in a 651$a or a $z should match a 151
in the LC authorities.

If the MARC field is 151 or 651 (let's just say x51), then the $a should
match a 151 in the authority file.
MARC subfield z ($z) is always a geographic subdivision and should match a
151.

Here's where it gets tricky: 
If the MARC field is a x10 (110, 610, 710 – corporate bodies), then the $a
should match a 110 or a 151 in the authority file. If the first indicator of
such a MARC field is a 1, then it will probably match a 151 – first
indicator "1" means that a heading is jurisdictional and may match a 151.

For  example:

110 1_ United States. ‡b Dept. of Agriculture

There is a 

151 United States 

in the LC authorities, but no 

110 United States

yet it can be used as a corporate body name in a bib. record with a 110
field. 

This is further confused by the VIAF, in which some national libraries have
established the United States as a corporate body (110).

At the risk of confusing things, I'd suggest looking at countries like the
United States, Kenya or Canada as examples. England is not a great example
because it's not a current jurisdiction name - there is a note in the LC
authority record that reads "Heading for England valid as a jurisdiction
before 1536 only. Use "(England)" as qualifier for places (23.4D) and for
nongovernment bodies (24.4C2)." It is established as a 110 because it *used
to be* a jurisdiction name and would be valid for works issued by the
government prior to 1536. Obviously this note is of no use to a machine, but
it explains why we aren't seeing it used as a jurisdiction (a corporate
body) with subordinate bodies.

I hope I'm not pointing out the obvious, but the use of names that appear in
151 fields in the authority file as 110 fields in bibliographic records
confused me for a very long time; our authorities librarian explained it to
me at least twice before the proverbial light bulb went on for me. 

Karen

Karen D. Miller
Monographic/Digital Projects Cataloger
Bibliographic Services Dept.
Northwestern University Library
Evanston, IL 
[log in to unmask]
847-467-3462


-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bill
Dueber
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 1:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] LCSH and Linked Data

On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Shirley Lincicum <[log in to unmask]
> wrote:

> Ross is essentially correct. Education is an authorized subject term
> that can be subdivided geographically. Finance is a free-floating
> subdivision that is authorized for use under subject terms that
> conform to parameters given in the scope notes in its authority record
> (680 fields), but it cannot be subdivided geographically. England is
> an authorized geographic subject term that can be added to any heading
> that can be subdivided geographically.


Wait, so is it possible to know if "England" means the free-floating
geographic entity or the country? Or is that just plain unknowable.

Suddenly, my mouth is hungering for something gun-flavored.

I know OCLC did some work trying to dis-integrate different types of terms
with the FAST stuff, but it's not clear to me how I can leverage that (or
anything else) to make LCSH at all useful as a search target or (even
better) facet.  Has anyone done anything with it?