Bibliographic Cataloging: General Policies

Distinguishing Works and Expressions with Identical Authorized Access Points

Per RDA 6.27.1.9, "make additions to access points if needed to distinguish the access point for a work from one that is the same or similar but represents a different work, or from one that represents a person, family, corporate body, or place." Therefore, the cataloger must test for conflicts against both bibliographic and authority records. This does not mean that the authorized access point in a bibliographic record cannot conflict with that in another record; it means that it cannot conflict with one that represents a different work or entity (see the examples in 6.27.1.9 to get a sense of this concept). Thus, different manifestations (print, online, microfiche, CD-ROM) of the same work share the same authorized access point. Different expressions of the same work, such as translations, are distinguished by adding additional identifying elements to the authorized access point for the work.

Although serials catalogers have been following them, these instructions are new to monograph catalogers. Authorized access points for monographs, serials, and integrating resources at the work level must be unique in the catalog of record (RDA 5.3, 5.5): if two or more works are represented by the same or similar access points, include one or more additional identifying elements in the access point representing the work, such as the form of work (see 6.3), the date of the work (see 6.4), c) the place of origin of the work (see 6.5), and/or another distinguishing characteristic of the work (see 6.6).

OCLC and the CGP are the two databases against which the searching should be done.

The authorized access point for a work consists of (RDA 5.1.4):

• the corporate body or person responsible for the work (100, 110, 111) and the preferred title for the work; or
• the preferred title only.

The preferred title is determined by the title proper, which consists of the 245 $a, $n, and $p (including multiple subfields n and p, if these are repeated). The title proper does not include $b, other title information. Therefore, other title information ($b) does not differentiate two works with the same, or similar, 245 $a.

When the cataloger finds a bibliographic or authority record for a different work or entity in OCLC/CGP having the identical authorized access point as that of the resource being cataloged, the cataloger must break the conflict (RDA 5.3, 5.5, 6.27.1.1, and 6.27.1.9): "Generally, resolve the conflict by making an addition in the authorized access point in the bibliographic or series authority record being created. Do not also modify the existing record. Some exceptions are noted in later sections of this Policy Statement.” (LC-PCC PS for 6.27.1.9, General). Per RDA 6.27.1.9, “Add one of the following elements as appropriate:

1. the form of work (see 6.3)
2. the date of the work (see 6.4)
3. the place of origin of the work (see 6.5) and/or
4. another distinguishing characteristic of the work (see 6.6)”

For specific instructions on “Choice of qualifying term,” consult the LC-PCC PS for 6.27.1.9, Monographs and Serials sections (the Integrating Resources section refers to the Monographs section).

The MARC coding used to break the conflict depends on the components of the authorized access point.

• When the authorized access point consists of a 1XX creator and 245 field: Add a 240 field for the preferred title qualified by an additional identifying element or elements.
• When the authorized access point consists of a 245 field only: Add 130 field for the preferred title qualified by an additional identifying element or elements.

In 76X to 78X linking entry fields, use the 1XX in $a, the 130 in $t, and the 240 in $s.

Example of a monograph record for a work being cataloged, that has the same authorized access point (the preferred title (or title proper) only) as a different work found in OCLC. Remember, the conflict must be for different works, not merely for different records. Multiple records can have identical authorized access points if they embody the same work.

When deciding on what qualifiers to use, choose the one most appropriate to your situation.

Due to the presentation of the title in many resources, there is a longstanding tendency to record distinctive title information as “other title information,” which is not included in the title proper and hence, in the preferred title, which comprises part or all of the authorized access point (AAP). As a result of this practice, the preferred title recorded by the cataloger may be nondistinctive, non-unique, and result in an authorized access point that is identical to that in many, different works. As a result, GPO has identified best practices which can be implemented in order to make the title proper (and hence, the preferred title and AAP) more distinctive and unique. These practices will result in less need to apply 6.27.1.9 by creating what were formerly called “uniform titles.” These best practices are demonstrated in Punctuation of the Title Proper below.

If you are unable to transcribe a unique (meaning unique from other works, not from other records) title proper or creator + title proper, from the presentation on your title source following the guidance in that section, you will need to apply 6.27.1.9 by adding a 130 or 240 field. Do not resort to unconventional measures to construct a unique title proper, such as adding slogans, publisher’s name, place of publication, date of publication, series statements, edition statements, numbering of serials, etc. to the title proper.

Chronological Editions

GPO does not consider it important to distinguish the authorized access points for most chronological editions (2nd edition, 3rd edition, 2010, 2012, revised 2009, etc.) of the same work. Per RDA 6.27.1.5: “If the work is presented simply as an edition of the previously existing work, treat it as an expression of that work. Use the authorized access point representing the previously existing work. If it is considered important to identify the particular expression, construct an authorized access point representing the expression as instructed at 6.27.3.” GPO does not consider it “important to identify the particular expression” in these cases. Below is an example of editions (expressions) of the same work that do not need differentiated authorized access points; these two records should share the same authorized access point for the work.

Both editions will use the same authorized access point: Hill, Matthew J., ǂd 1981- .A computational investigation of gear windage. No additional identifying elements need to be added to this. No 240 field needs to be added with parenthetical additions to the preferred title. Both of these editions will collocate together in the CGP and in OCLC. Remember, we are not differentiating between authorized access points (AAPs) in records but in works. If we were differentiating between AAPs in records, then we would go back to the previous serials practice of: 130 NIDCR research digest (Online), in order to differentiate records for different manifestations/formats.

Example of a brochure, for which a decision has been made to not catalog as a serial:

These particular (2006, 2007, 2009, 2010) types of editions (expressions) of the same work do not need differentiated authorized access points; all four records should share the same authorized access point for the work.

Language Editions

When two or more language versions (translations or language editions) are found in OCLC, the CGP, or online, bring these together by using the same preferred title for each, usually the English title. Make an addition, usually to the non-English title, of the language of the expression, in order to identify the specific language expression. See RDA and LC-PCC PS 6.27.3.

Punctuation in the title proper

Determine what the title statement elements are (title proper (including part titles if applicable) and other title information), then apply ISBD rules accordingly. Do not assume that a colon, either supplied by the cataloger or transcribed from the resource, used as normal English punctuation (colon-space) equates to a colon used as ISBD punctuation (space-colon-space), and therefore signals “other title information.” It is completely RDA compliant to add a colon without a preceding space within the title proper or within the 245$a, that is followed by additional text within the same title statement element. A colon without a preceding space may be recorded (added by the cataloger or transcribed) within the 245$a or within the title proper, and not be immediately followed by a subfield ‘b’ for “other title information.”

Relevant RDA instructions:

Consider also AACR2: 1.1B1. Transcribe the title proper exactly as to wording, order, and spelling, but not necessarily as to punctuation and capitalization.

The thinking that a colon must be followed by other title information is incorrect; the instructions above only say that other title information must be preceded by a space-colon-space.

Use of Part Titles

If the titles proper of the resources below were all transcribed as “The evaluation of enhanced academic instruction in after-school programs”, there would be a conflict between the two major works: the Findings after the first year of implementation, and the Final report. In addition, their respective executive summaries would also share the same AAP.

In this situation, the best solution is to transcribe the titles proper as follows:

Use of Other Title Information

According to RDA 2.3.4.1, “Other title information is information that appears in conjunction with, and is subordinate to, the title proper of the resource. Other title information can include any phrase appearing with a title proper that is indicative of: the character, contents, etc., of the resource, or the motives for, or occasion of, its production, publication, etc.”

There are hundreds of different works, many by the same agency, that begin with “Draft environmental impact statement” using this same presentation. Example: http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo46212. 

There are hundreds of different works, many by the same agency, that begin with “Motor vehicle use map” using this same presentation. “United States. Forest Service” would be the creator of this cartographic work. Example: http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo15126 (title panel in top left—rotate 180 degrees & zoom in)

In these situations, “Draft environmental impact statement” and “Motor vehicle resource map” both meet this definition of other title information, and may subsequently be transposed so as to follow the distinctive title, as follows:

Title Layout on Publication

Title source is as follows:

Similar to the previous example, this title statement could be:

Cataloged in 2010, this resource was treated this way:

It could also be transcribed as:

Similar Title and Similar Creator

There are about 10 different works (their content differs) entered under the same creator with titles beginning with “Aviation safety.” In addition, there are also about 18 different works entered under corporate body (GAO) with titles beginning with “Aviation safety.” http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo44849

Similar to the examples in the Use of Part Titles above, these 28 or so different works in which GAO evaluates “Aviation safety,” may be considered parts of a comprehensive title. Therefore, each of these works may be entered using the following treatment:

Other Methods of Transcribing the Title Proper

Using the previous title as an example, if the “part title” solution was rejected, the following methods of transcribing the title proper, without recording other title information, are listed.

These are all situations in which the cataloger is supplying punctuation per RDA 1.7.3. When transcribing “punctuation as it appears on the source,” prefer to transcribe the exact punctuation as it appears on the source.

Prefer either of these two options:

Lower preference:

Using a comma is the least preferred punctuation to use to separate phrases in the title proper, but may be used when appropriate.

Use of Project Name

There are approximately 7 different works whose title begins with “Solar technology validation project” followed by the name of the particular project. Per RDA 1.7.3: “Transcribe punctuation as it appears on the source.” Example: http://purl.fdlp.gov//GPO/gpo47213

Colon in Title Proper

There are quite a few Congressional hearings before the same Subcommittee that have titles beginning with “Cybersecurity.” Since the title presentation itself uses a colon in normal English punctuation, it may be transcribed exactly as on the resource. http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo48799

Relationship Designators (Relator Terms)

This section contains LSCM instructions and tips. Please see RDA Appendix I for more information.

Use $e or $j for relator term rather than $4 for relator code because of the former option's explicitness. Precede the relationship designator in 1XX and 7XX fields with a comma.

Use a relator term to specify the primary role of an entity. For example, the principal role of “author” takes precedence over the secondary role of “issuing body.” An author may be a personal name, family name, or corporate body; their role should still be recorded as “author.” Prefer to use one relator term which describes the primary role of an entity, rather than multiple relator terms describing all roles of an entity. Prefer to use a specific term to a general one whenever possible. For example, if one of the terms from RDA Appendix I.2.1 is more precise than “author” for the creator of a work, use the more explicit term in place of “author.”

The relator term “publisher” can now be used. For a government body that serves as both issuing body and publisher, provide only the relationship designator “issuing body.” Only provide “publisher” in a tracing when that role is fulfilled by an entity different from the issuing body. When in doubt as to whether a government corporate body functions as the publisher or issuing body, choose “issuing body.”

The MARC relator term subfield used for conferences/meetings is $j, while that used for other names is $e:

Per RDA 19.2.1.1.1c, a conference may be considered a creator. Therefore, “author” is one of the terms in Appendix I that would be appropriate for Conferences/Meetings. Other appropriate terms are: compiler, issuing body, and sponsoring body.

If the type of relationship for a 1XX or 7XX cannot be readily determined, the relator codes may be omitted.

Different Language Editions

Per RDA chapter 6, unique authorized access points are required for publications published simultaneously with different titles (6.2.2.4), in different languages (6.2.2.4, 6.27.3), or that are translations (6.27.3). However, LC/NACO authority records are not created for them by GPO.

If a document is a simultaneously published version of another document in a different language, it is described in the note area as a version, not as translation, e.g., 500 Spanish version.

Consider a publication a translation rather than a version in a different language if it contains explicit translation statements, e.g., 500 "Translated by ..." or 500 "Translation of ..." Prior to RDA, sometime before 2002, the Library of Congress requested that GPO not establish uniform titles for translations of individual journal articles. Therefore, GPO will not establish unique authorized access points for translations of individual journal articles.

Location (Source) of Names and Other Elements Recorded in the Resource Cataloged

This section provides guidance on sources of information to use for recording persons and corporate bodies (both Federal and non-Federal) associated with a work or resource. These sources are used for recording or transcribing the persons and corporate bodies in both the body of the bibliographic description (especially in the 245$c, 264$b or 260$b, or 5XX note), and in descriptive access points (tracings). The verb “record,” in this section, will refer to both tracing a name and recording or transcribing it in the body of the description. “Source” and “location” are synonymous for “source of information.” Another term for “used as a descriptive access point in the resource cataloged” is “to trace” or “traced.” Therefore, when a name is traced in a bibliographic record, it is recorded as an access point.

“A statement of responsibility is a statement relating to the identification and/or function of any persons, families, or corporate bodies responsible for the creation of, or contributing to the realization of, the intellectual or artistic content of a resource.” (RDA 2.4.1)

GPO follows all of RDA 2.2.2. The four subsections of 2.2.2 are applied in order. For specific elements in Chapter 2, consult the “Sources of Information” subsection for that element, e.g., 2.4.1.2. In addition, GPO follows RDA and LC-PCC PS: 19.1.1, 19.2.1.2, and 19.3.1.2. Apply 19.1.1 (b): “information appearing only in the content of the resources (e.g., the text of a book, …),” and 19.1.1 (c) “other sources,” only in rare cases, when considered necessary. In addition to these instructions in Chapters 2 and 19, apply the guidelines below.

Generally, record only names found in the resource itself. Occasional exceptions may be made for personal, corporate, conference names, or series titles, in the following situations:

• Personal names: These are usually copy cataloging situations where the personal name is already entered as the creator in a 100 field. If no records exist for the work or expression manifested by the resource you are cataloging, do not consult additional sources to identify such a personal name.
• Corporate names: when the Federal agency publishing or issuing the resource is not named within the resource, it may be identified from the SuDoc class that has been assigned by GPO. This Federal corporate body under which the SuDoc class has been assigned is traced, and recorded usually as the publisher’s name (field 264$b or 260$b), or occasionally in a note.
• Corporate names: occasionally, it may occur that the corporate body creator, according to 19.2.1.1.1, especially category (a), is not explicitly named in the resource.
• Conference names: these may be taken from outside the resource.
• Series titles: if not found within the resource, may be taken from outside the resource (2.12.2.2).

Within the resource itself, GPO is generally more restrictive than using “the entire resource.” Generally, do not record names that are embedded in text (for example, in the first sentence of a preface). Statements of responsibility that are embedded in text may usually be ignored; otherwise, they are transcribed (fully or partially) in a note. See “Statements of Responsibility” below. Generally, record names from the sources in 2.2.2. Take names from statements of responsibility and/or from information that is formally presented. RDA defines “formally presented” as: Appearing in isolation, as opposed to appearing embedded in text, and in a prominent location. “Prominent location” is not defined in RDA. AACR2 0.8 states that the word "prominently" "means that a statement to which it applies must be a formal statement found in one of the prescribed sources of information for areas 1 and 2 for the class of material to which the item being cataloged belongs." Areas 1 and 2 referred to the areas of the resource from which the title and statement of responsibility, and edition statement were transcribed or taken. Since “prominent location” is not defined in RDA, we infer it to mean at least the definition in AACR2 0.8 (the source that has a title or edition statement) and more, specifically, the preferred sources described in 2.2.2.

GPO further clarifies these sources as follows: In addition to title page, sheet, card, frame, screen, etc., 2.2.2 instructs us to use a source “that has a title” or a source “with a title.” In addition to such sources, GPO may also record names found in an area of the resource that contains other descriptive elements, such as: publisher name, publication date, publication place, edition statement, or series statement. Formal statements on the last page of text may also be used, as may the title page verso, or its online equivalent. RDA 2.2.2.2(a) lists the cover. Cover should usually include only pages 1 and 4 of the cover. (In a PDF of a printed resource, these are usually the first and last pages, or screens, of the PDF file.) If needed, it may also include pages 2 and 3 of the cover, or the online equivalent of these pages. In recording names from the sources described in this paragraph, cataloger judgment is to be used. Generally, names found in these secondary sources within the resource should only be recorded when a Federal publisher or issuing body is not found in a more preferred source. Then, the cataloger must resort to a less preferred source. Alternatively, the cataloger may already have found the name of the Federal publisher or issuing body in a preferred location, but may judge that an additional name found in a secondary location has a significant relation to the work, and will provide an important access point. Cataloger judgment is utilized in this regard. It is not expected that GPO staff reviewing or evaluating records will consider as an error, for example, neglecting to record an additional name found on page 2 of the cover, when the primary Federal issuing body has already been recorded from the title page.

Do not record names from seals or logos, unless one of these is your only source for a Federal corporate body functioning as an author, issuing body, or publisher (such a relator term would appear in subfield e of the 110 or 710 field). Seals or logos for non-Federal corporate bodies may always be ignored. Do not record corporate bodies that are listed as affiliations (places of work) of personal authors. An example of three affiliations appearing under personal author names appears on the title page of: http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo38311.

See: Bibliographic Cataloging: General MARC Field Policies for specific guidance on transcribing statements of responsibility. See the "Adding Authorized Access Points - What to Trace" section below for guidance on tracing names in statements of responsibility.

Statements of Responsibility

According to RDA 2.4.1, “A statement of responsibility is a statement relating to the identification and/or function of any persons, families, or corporate bodies responsible for the creation of, or contributing to the realization of, the intellectual or artistic content of a resource.” GPO continues, as it did under AACR2, to make a distinction between formal and informal statements of responsibility.

Formal Statements: A statement of responsibility is considered to be a formal statement when:

1. It is isolated from textual material, e.g., “Bureau of Labor Statistics,” or “Robert Meyers.”
2. If the name of the personal author or responsible corporate body appears at head of title or following the title, it is considered a formal statement of responsibility.
3. The entire statement could be transcribed, e.g., “Prepared by J. Peterson.” A statement is NOT considered to be formal if extracted from a grammatically complete sentence, e.g., “This book written by ...”

Examples of Formal Statements: These are usually transcribed in the 245 $c.

Informal Statements: The relevant information that appears in informal statements of responsibility, if considered important, may only be transcribed in the note area.

Examples of Informal Statements: These may be transcribed in notes, or ignored, but may not be transcribed in the statement of responsibility area. Normally, they are ignored in practice.

Names contained in informal statements of responsibility are seldom recorded. Personal names found in these are not generally recorded, unless the cataloger is adapting a record which already records such a personal name. Catalogers should apply judgment in recording a corporate name contained in an informal statement of responsibility. If this is the only source for the name of the Federal agency issuing or publishing the resource, then it should be used. Alternatively, the cataloger may already have found the name of the Federal publisher or issuing body in a preferred location, but may judge that an additional name found in an informal statement of responsibility has a significant relation to the work, and will provide an important access point. Catalogers will not be counted in error for not recording a corporate name contained in an informal statement of responsibility, when a Federal corporate name appearing in a more prominent source has already been recorded.

Technical Report Documentation Page

 Only record non-Federal corporate bodies from the technical report documentation page, if they performed work according to a contract, grant, or other funding number which is listed adjacent to their name.

See Bibliographic Cataloging: Monographs and Bibliographic Cataloging: Technical Reports for more information on technical reports.

Programs and Projects

Programs and projects are treated the same as other corporate names, except for the limitation described in: Name Authorities: Policy Overview: Programs and Projects.

Adding Authorized Access Points - What to Trace

Authorized Access Points in Bibliographic Records

All access points for names and subjects, appearing in fields 100, 110, 111, 600, 610, 611, 700, 710, 711, 730, 810, and 830, except personal names and certain works and expressions, must have a corresponding authority record (i.e., must be authorized). Temporary exceptions are made in the following two instances: (a) Congressionals or other priority titles may be produced with unauthorized access points while name authority work for these is still in process, and (b), proposed subject headings that have been sent to LC’s editorial approval process may be included. In both cases, the records are produced at full level but not authenticated.

Subjects

Certain titles when used as subject headings do not need to be established. See: Subject Cataloging: General Policies: Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH): no. 6. Otherwise, all elements (including personal names) of subject lines coded “Library of Congress subject headings (LCSH)” (2nd indicator zero) in GPO records must be confirmed in either the OCLC authority file or by a subject heading proposal in LC’s Classification Web, or Minaret system. Records containing proposed subject headings are produced at full level but not authenticated. A temporary exception may be made for Congressionals or other priority titles, when names used in these as subjects (fields 600, 610, 611, 651) are in the process of having NACO records prepared. These records are produced at full level but not authenticated while the name authority records are being prepared. Actual LCSH headings and subdivisions must have either: (a) corresponding subject authority records, or, (b) subject heading proposals in Classification Web. Names and titles (personal names, corporate/conference names, works and expressions (with the exception above), and jurisdictional geographic names) that appear in the 6XX fields of bibliographic records, must have corresponding name authority records. For more details, and information on non LCSH subjects, see: Subject Cataloging: General Policies.

The number of LCSH fields in a bibliographic record may vary between one (1) and ten (10), but usually average between three (3) and five (5). Catalogers follow SHM H 80 for the order of subject headings. When SHM H 80 does not prescribe any order, subject headings are placed in order by MARC field tag.

Names and Titles:

For names and titles used as author or title descriptive access points (fields 1XX, 7XX, and 8XX), consult: Name Authorities: Background and Name Authorities: Policy Overview. In all cases, Congressionals or other priority titles may be produced with unauthorized access points, as a temporary measure, while name authority work for these is still in process. Updated summaries appear below:

• Personal Names (fields 100, 700): These must be established in the authority file only for Congressional publications. They need not be established for other publications.
• Corporate/Conference Names (fields 110, 111, 710, 711): These must be established in the authority file. Programs and Projects are treated the same as other corporate names, except for the limitation described in: Name Authorities: Policy Overview: Programs and Projects.
• Series Titles (fields 810, 830): These must be established in the authority file.
• Uniform Titles (fields 700, 710, 711, 730): These do not need to be established in the authority file, but do need to be contained in a bibliographic record. If the title in one of these fields has a corresponding authority record, it should be linked to it (i.e., should be controlled). If the title in one of these fields has a corresponding bibliographic record, it should match the authorized access point for the work manifested by the bibliographic record.
• Places (fields 110, 710): Places that are corporate bodies (such as countries, states, cities, water districts, etc.) are tagged 151 in the authority record, but may be tagged 110 or 710 in a bibliographic record, if acting as a corporate body associated with the resource or work. These must be established in the authority file. For more information on the tagging change from 151 to X10, see the Places (Jurisdictional Geographic Names) section in: Name Authorities: Policy Overview.

Limitations on Names Used as Descriptive Authorized Access Points in the Resource Cataloged

RDA 19.2 requires that only the creator having principal responsibility that is named first, or the first-named creator of a resource, be recorded. 19.3 only requires that certain additional persons, families, or corporate bodies be recorded in specific situations, in which “the access point representing that person, family, or corporate body is used to construct the authorized access point representing the work …” In GPO, such situations are specific to treaties or other legal materials, and other rare, unique situations. For the great majority of resources cataloged by GPO, added entries are optional, per RDA. This means that the names of persons or corporate bodies may be recorded in the description (245$c, 264, note, etc.), but not as authorized access points (that is, not traced).

GPO limits added entries as follows: only a total (including the “main entry”) of three personal authors are traced, and only a total (including the “main entry”) of two non-Federal corporate bodies are traced in a single bibliographic record. Generally, three corporate/conference body authorized access points are sufficient in a record. However, if more than three Federal corporate/conference bodies are formally presented, these should all be traced.

The particular function of these entities in relation to the work embodied, is irrelevant to these limitations—it does not matter whether an entity recorded in an authorized access point, functions as an author or other type of creator, or as a publisher, issuing body, or other type of entity associated with the work embodied. Thus, it does not matter whether the 1XX and 7XX fields contain the relationship designators author, publisher, issuing body, etc.

Only the lowest unit of corporate bodies that are presented hierarchically in statements of responsibility or publishing statements are given entries. The entire hierarchical statement is usually transcribed in the statement of responsibility, publisher name (264$b or 260$b), or note, but only the lowest body is given an authorized access point (110 or 710). For example, the following publication statement appears in the imprint area:

Four corporate bodies are listed within this hierarchy: the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, and its three hierarchical superior bodies. Only the lowest body is entered in a 110 or 710, as follows:

Four corporate bodies are listed within this hierarchy: the Health and Ecosystems Effects Group, and its three hierarchical superior bodies. Only the lowest body is entered in a 110 or 710, as follows:

Do not trace corporate bodies whose function is limited to merely publishing or distributing the resource. See RDA 21.2 -– 21.5.

Bodies to Which Documents Are Submitted in Fulfillment of Law

Added entries are NOT included for corporate bodies to which a document is submitted in fulfillment of law, i.e., the President, Congress, etc.

Conferences

GPO does NOT enter individual conference papers under the name of the conference at which they were presented, nor does it include added entries for conferences in individual papers.

Sponsors

GPO does NOT include added entries for corporate sponsors, except for those that are also the publisher of a document or those that sponsor a conference. GPO does NOT include added entries for conference sponsors in records for individual conference papers.

Single Statements of Responsibility

With the exception of Congressionals, GPO follows the optional omission from RDA 2.4.1.5: “If a single statement of responsibility names more than 3 persons or corporate bodies performing the same function …, omit all but the first.” Add a summary statement in square brackets, e.g., [and four others]. When exercising this option to omit names from the statement of responsibility (SOR), do not provide tracings (7XXs) for the names omitted. Always exercise this option for personal names. Rare exceptions may be made, according to cataloger judgment, in cases where 4 or 5 Federal corporate bodies are listed in a single SOR. Generally, only 3 Federal bodies will be entered in a single SOR, but occasionally, 4 or 5 may be entered. In all cases, each Federal corporate body in a single transcribed SOR will be traced in an authorized access point.

Multiple Statements of Responsibility

According to RDA 2.4: “… only the first recorded is required. Other statements of responsibility are optional.” GPO’s policy is to generally transcribe all multiple statements of responsibility, but to limit the number of corresponding added entries (per 19.3, added entries are optional, except in certain cases).

GPO limits added entries as follows: only a total (including the “main entry”) of three personal authors are traced, and only a total of two non-Federal corporate bodies are traced in a single bibliographic record. Generally, three corporate/conference body authorized access points are sufficient in a record. However, if more than three Federal corporate/conference bodies are formally presented, these should all be traced.

Non-Federal Corporate Bodies

Trace no more than a total of two non-Federal corporate bodies, that is, provide only two or less authorized access points for these in a single bibliographic record.

Non-Federal bodies include firms, organizations (such as associations or non-profits), local, regional, and state agencies, secondary and higher educational institutions, research laboratories, and private foundations. Sources (locations) for names of non-Federal corporate bodies follow the guidance above in: Location (Source) of Names Used as Descriptive Authorized Access Points in the Resource Cataloged. They are transcribed in statements of responsibility, notes, or publisher name, and given added entries if they are recognizable as the publishers or preparers of the work, because of the location of the name or by explicit wording in the document.

In addition, contractors that are identified as such by the presence of a contract, grant, or other funding number, are given added entries. GPO includes either a main entry or added entry for non-Federal corporate bodies that prepare Federal documents under contract if the specific contract number under which it is prepared appears in a document.

Determining if a Contractor Should Be Given an Authorized Access Point

Only corporate bodies with a contractual relationship that results in the production of specific documents are given an entry. No entry is given a corporate body which operates a government facility under contract to an agency. For example, GPO does NOT trace or name a corporate body that operates a laboratory for a Federal agency under a facilities management contract.

In addition, one of the following must also be true:

• They are transcribed in statements of responsibility, notes, or publisher name, and are recognizable as the publishers or preparers of the work, because of the location of the name or by explicit wording in the document. OR
• Both the name of the contractor and the contract number must be formally presented, or appear on a bibliographic data sheet.

Determining the Version of the Contractor’s Name to Record in an Authorized Access Point: The version of the contractor’s name appearing in the source from which the title is taken (see RDA 2.2.2) is preferred over versions of a contractor's name appearing in another source, e.g., the technical report documentation page, etc. If the contractor's parent body is named on the title page, and a lower unit is named on the technical report documentation page, the name of the parent body is recorded as it appears on the title page.

Programs and Projects are treated the same as other corporate names, except for the limitation described in: Name Authorities: Policy Overview: Programs and Projects.

Authorized Access Points in Adapted OCLC Records (Copy Cataloging)

GPO retains all authorized access points included in previously existing DLC, AGL, NLC, NLM, BIBCO, and CONSER records. If such an access point for a corporate body is not established, GPO establishes a name authority record for the corporate body.

GPO retains all required and optional authorized access points, if established, in other previously existing records.

Unauthorized access points that have been generated by data extraction methods, such as those in DTIC records, are retained in the OCLC master record, but removed from the local record.

Excepting DLC, AGL, NLC, NLM, BIBCO, and CONSER records, catalogers may remove unauthorized access points for corporate bodies from existing records if they are not established and are not required by RDA, the LC-PCC PSs, or GPO policies. If GPO staff judge that an unauthorized access point for a corporate body that has not been established is needed by users, catalogers may establish the corporate body and retain the access point.

Authorized access points that GPO would not provide in original cataloging are generally retained in records for copy, since they are controlled. Although this may create some inconsistency in the CGP, it is cost-efficient, and such inconsistencies can be understood when the 040 field of a questioned record indicates that the record was created by another institution.

New GPO Records Created by Cloning Existing Records

Generally, access point requirements for new records that are created by cloning are the same as those for existing OCLC records that are adapted. Unauthorized access points and statements justifying them may be readily removed by catalogers if they are not required, or are inappropriate.