[yul-naco] Yale response to CPSO proposal on parks/forests

[Manon Theroux]

Dear NACO catalogers,

A couple of months ago I solicited your comments on a CPSO proposal for a 
new policy for headings for government-designated parks and forests. The 
NACO Coordinating Committee also discussed the proposal at great length. 
Below is the response to the proposal that the Library will submit to CPSO. 
We are not supporting the change. I gather from the messages that I have 
seen posted to Autocat and the PCC discussion list that many other 
institutions are also not in favor of it.

-Manon

===============================

To:		Library of Congress, CPSO
From:		Yale University Library
Re:		Proposed Change in Policy for Headings for
Government-Designated Parks and Forests
Date:		December 23, 2004


Yale does not support the change in policy for headings for 
government-designated parks and forests recently proposed by the LC 
Cataloging Policy & Support Office <http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/parks.html>.

We suspect that the majority of catalog users would be confused by two 
different headings used to represent the same entity. We also suspect that 
many catalogers would find the proposed changes not only conceptually 
confusing but difficult to apply in practice. The new policy would 
introduce exceptional treatment for two categories of headings and thus 
needlessly complicate the instructions in SCM H 405. Headings for 
government-designated parks/forests would no longer fall neatly into the 
Group 1 vs. Group 2 dichotomy; rather, they would follow a complex "third 
model".

The proposal does not address headings for parks/forests that are not 
government-designated (e.g., parks/forests that are private, associated 
with international or non-profit agencies, etc.). It seems likely that 
these headings might also be needed as main and added entries on 
bibliographic records. If they are not covered by the new proposal, we 
assume they would continue to be classified as straight Group 2 headings 
and moved to the name authority file on an "as needed" basis (without the 
addition of the "Agency" qualifier), further complicating the situation 
from the catalog user's perspective.

Because the new proposal would require the creation of additional authority 
records, it would result in an increased workload for catalogers. For parks 
and forests that have not yet been established, the cataloger would first 
have to submit a SACO proposal, then wait for it to be approved, then 
create the name heading with the "Agency" qualifier. Any future revision of 
the subject heading would also necessitate revision of the record with the 
name heading. For parks and forests that currently have only name records 
(because the heading on the subject record was previously moved to the name 
file in accordance with current policy), the cataloger would have to submit 
a request for the subject record to be re-established, the name record 
would have to be revised by the addition of a qualifier, and the 
bibliographic headings would have to be changed.

The searching problems identified in the proposal are not limited to 
headings for government-designated parks and forests; they apply to all 
Group 2 headings. As noted, the presence of both name and subject authority 
records for a particular heading type can be confusing for catalogers and 
searching the headings in databases that index name and subject authority 
records separately can be time-consuming and costly (e.g., RLIN has 
separate name and subject authority files and the "resume" command will no 
longer be an option in RLIN21). Also confusing for catalogers is the fact 
that Group 2 headings in the name file are established according to LCSH 
conventions rather than AACR2/LCRI conventions (and LCSH calls for using a 
single authority record to represent all earlier and later names of a 
corporate entity). The new proposal would not change this approach, as the 
LC-NACO heading would still be based on the LC-SACO heading.

If headings for parks/forests are indeed becoming increasingly problematic 
as Group 2 headings, we would prefer to establish them as Group 1 name 
authority record headings instead (with the scope extended to parks and 
forests owned by non-government entities). Converting existing subject 
authority records to name records would be a time-consuming project, and 
some headings might have to be revised because of the differences between 
descriptive conventions and LCSH conventions, but once the conversion was 
finished the headings for parks/forests would all reside in the LC-NACO 
file, procedures for handling corporate name changes would be consistent 
with AACR2 practice, new records would be contributed directly by NACO 
contributors, and LC would have fewer SACO proposals to review. 
Broader-term topical references would be lost, but we do not have such 
references for other Group 1 headings anyway.

Given the option, the majority here would prefer to tag Group 1 name 
authority record headings for parks/forests 151 rather than 110. Although 
this preference probably derives from the tendency of catalogers to think 
of parks and forests primarily as geographic areas, the instinct is also 
partly a pragmatic one, as no retagging of existing bibliographic headings 
would be required. In bibliographic records, the headings would continue to 
be coded 651 when used as geographic subjects and X10 when used as 
corporate main or added entries. However, we recognize that coding the 
Group 1 name authority records as 110 might be more defensible, given that 
parks and forests are not considered to be jurisdictions.

In closing, Adam Schiff has suggested simply adding 710 (established 
heading linking entry) fields to the subject authority records. However, it 
is our understanding that a 710 must correspond to a 110 established 
heading in another national bibliographic agency's authority file. Further, 
this approach would not address inconsistent procedures for handling 
corporate name changes in NACO vs. SACO headings and would require LC to 
maintain the burden of review and data-entry for these subject records.