There is an interesting difference between the instruction on authorized
access points for corporate bodies and that on variant access points:
11.13.1.1 General Guidelines on Constructing Authorized Access Points to
Represent Corporate Bodies
"Make the additions specified at 11.13.1.3–11.13.1.7 if they are needed
to distinguish access points representing different corporate bodies
with the same name."
11.13.2.1 General Guidelines on Constructing Variant Access Points to
Represent Corporate Bodies
"Make additions to the name, if considered important for identification.
Apply the instructions at 11.13.1.2–11.13.1.8, as applicable."
For the AAP, RDA says very clearly that it must be unique. But for VAPs,
the rule seems a bit vague. I wonder whether it is vague on purpose.
In the "Royal Academy of Music" example in 11.13.2.1 the place has
obviously been added in order to distinguish between VAPs of different
corporate bodies, which otherwise would have been identical. But as we
all know, examples in RDA are illustrative only. So if somebody decided
that the place wasn't "important for identification", he or she might
feel free not to add it, and still be within the bounds of RDA.
Apart from acronyms and initialisms, I think that VAPs for corporate
bodies should always be unique, i.e. neither identical to the AAP or VAP
of some other corporate body.
What are your thoughts on this matter?
Heidrun
--
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
