 |
 |
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?