1.1.  Background

Most access points representing entities fall into clearly defined categories and are established either as personal names, corporate bodies, jurisdictions, works or expressions, named meetings, etc., in the name authority file or as topical subject headings, named objects such as names of automobiles, geographical features, etc., in the subject authority file.  There are, however, certain named entities that have been problematic as to

a.   whether the authority record for the authorized access point should go into the name authority file (descriptive cataloging) or the subject authority file (subject cataloging); and

b.   how the access points should be tagged in both authority and bibliographic records.

To eliminate this confusion and to standardize the formulation and tagging of access points for such entities, the former Office for Descriptive Cataloging Policy (Desc Pol) and the Office for Subject Cataloging Policy (Subj Pol), working under the aegis of the Director for Cataloging, developed guidelines with respect to

a.   the responsibility for establishing the authorized access points;

b.   the conventions to be used in formulating the authorized access points;

c.   the tags to be used for content designation; and

d.   the file (name and subject authority) in which the authority records for them should reside.

In 1994, the Cooperative Cataloging Council (CCC) established the PSD/CCC Task Group on Issues Surrounding Maintenance of Separate Name and Subject Authority Files.  This task group agreed to reduce the "logical" inconsistencies between the two files so that they could be more easily used together.  To this end the task group recommended and the CCC approved the deletion from the subject authority file of duplicate name headings that had been needed in the subject authority file to produce various products, such as Library of Congress Subject Headings.

In 1995 the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) (successor to the CCC) created a follow-on task group, PCC Task Group on Name Versus Subject Authorities, that considered and made recommendations on the remaining categories of entities that could be established by either descriptive or subject catalogers (cemeteries, city sections, concentration camps, and country clubs), events, and tagging conventions for certain "geographic" entities.  The PCC approved the task group's recommendations, and the results are reflected below.

1.2.  General guidelines

a.   These guidelines relate primarily to the family of problem cases, not to the ones that are clear-cut.  For example, the tagging decisions appended include some entities that are within the concept "corporate body" but are also judged to exemplify the concept "geographic" and, therefore, are tagged 151.  (Note that when entities tagged 151 in the authority file are used as access points in bibliographic records (110, 710, 810), the first indicator is set to the value 1.)  Care should be taken, however, that a name containing one of the terms noted in one of the lists is indeed a member of that category, e.g., Xavier Ranch Corporation is not a ranch in the sense of the Group 2 list.

b.   The provisions herein refer to "need" or "use" in descriptive or subject cataloging.  As far as descriptive cataloging is concerned, such statements are to be understood as referring to authorized access points required by LC's policies on authorized access points and to variant access points on name and series authority records.  "Need" and "use" do not refer to subject entries even if a descriptive authorized access points is involved.

c.   Adjust the tagging on existing authority and bibliographic records to reflect current policy when necessary.

d.   LC Catalogers:  If a Group 2—Subject Authority Group entity is being used as a descriptive authorized access point, create a name authority record according to subject cataloging rules.  Add a 667 note to the NAR with the statement "Subj. Headings Manual/RDA."  If a Group 2 Heading for the same entity exists in the LCSH File create an NAR (cf. DCM Z1 Appendix 1: Ambiguous Entities, Section, 3.1) and send a notification to PSD policy@loc.gov to delete the subject authority record, per SHM H 193.

e.   PCC Catalogers:  If a Group 2—Subject Authority Group heading is being used as an access point, create a name authority record according to subject cataloging rules.  Add a 667 note to the NAR with the statement "Subj. Headings Manual/RDA."  If a Group 2 Subject Heading for the same entity exists in the LCSH File create an NAR (cf. DCM Z1 Appendix 1: Ambiguous Entities, Section, 3.1) and send a notification to saco@loc.gov to delete the existing subject authority record.

1.3.  Specific procedures

Entities have been divided into two groups, and special instructions for both these groups follow.  Lists of the two groups of entities are given in Subject Headings Manual (SHM), H 405, Establishing Certain Entities in the Name or Subject Authority File.  The lists are updated as the need arises; refer potential additions to the Policy and Standards Division (PSD).

See also:

2.  Group 1 - Name Authority Group  (Appendix 1 - Ambiguous Entities)

3.  Group 2 - Subject Authority Group  (Appendix 1 - Ambiguous Entities)

For more information on DCM Z1 Instructions, select:

DCM Z1:  Introduction

DCM Z1