Adam
The short answer is yes.
I think it is interesting to look at how these metadata statements can be processed automatically to infer/entail new statements.
The statements are:
1. United States is jurisdiction governed of United States. Congress
2. United States. Congress has jurisdiction governed United States
3. Seattle (Wash.) is jurisdiction governed of Seattle (Wash.). City Council
4. Seattle (Wash.). City Council has jurisdiction governed Seattle (Wash.)
Statement 1 uses the RDA element "
is jurisdiction governed of" with domain Place and range Corporate Body.
Standard semantic processing of statement 1 infers:
5. United States is an instance of Place
6. United States. Congress is an instance of Corporate Body
Furthermore, the RDA element has the inverse "has jurisdiction governed", so processing can also infer:
7. United States. Congress has jurisdiction governed United States
So statement 2 can be inferred from statement 1.
Applying processing of the domain and range of the inverse element gives:
8. United States. Congress is an instance of Corporate Body
9. United States is an instance of Place
These are the same as inferred statements 6 and 5.
Apply the same semantic processing to statement 3 (or 4, it doesn't matter which of the inverses is used) generates:
10. Seattle (Wash.) is an instance of Place
11. Seattle (Wash.). City Council is an instance of Corporate Body
and the inverse statement.
If statement 1 (or 2) and statement 3 (or 4) are valid, then all these other statements are a) valid and b) may be generated by automated processes.
Finally, this is an opportunity to remind colleagues that RSC is currently
initiating a Place/Jurisdiction Working Group to develop the RDA treatment of "jurisdiction".
------------------------------
Gordon Dunsire
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: Oct 09, 2021 03:02 PM
From: Adam Schiff
Subject: Jurisdiction governed/Jurisdiction governed of
Gordon,
I want to come back to this question, thinking I have a better understanding of this element and its inverse now. Are these proper statements?
United States is jurisdiction governed of United States. Congress
United States. Congress has jurisdiction governed United States
Seattle (Wash.) is jurisdiction governed of Seattle (Wash.). City Council
Seattle (Wash.). City Council has jurisdiction governed Seattle (Wash.)
------------------------------
Adam Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
He/Him/His
Original Message:
Sent: Aug 03, 2021 08:56 AM
From: Gordon Dunsire
Subject: Jurisdiction governed/Jurisdiction governed of
Colleagues
Adam's examples illustrate why the clear separation of Corporate Body and Place, in the context of 'jurisdiction', is useful: "Department of Parks and Recreation" is not a place, afaik :-)
I agree that "place governed" is a better element label than "jurisdiction governed". I would prefer the term 'jurisdiction' to be avoided in RDA Toolkit because of its double meaning; I think there was discussion on issues in translating it. I assume this will all be taken into account by RSC's group.
------------------------------
Gordon Dunsire
Original Message:
Sent: Aug 02, 2021 12:18 PM
From: Stephen McDonald
Subject: Jurisdiction governed/Jurisdiction governed of
Interesting questions. I suppose it might be possible to continue using a single NAF heading for both place and government, using the definitions of the relationships to distinguish which applies in each instance. But that would be a discussion for LC/PCC. RDA itself must distinguish them to align with LRM and to have element scopes consistent with the RDA entities.
------------------------------
Stephen McDonald
Digital Initiatives Librarian
Tufts University
Original Message:
Sent: Aug 02, 2021 11:44 AM
From: Adam Schiff
Subject: Jurisdiction governed/Jurisdiction governed of
I sympathize with the issue that Bob raises, and recognize the difference between jurisdiction (government/corporate body) and place, but do we really want to have two separate entities such as United States (place) and United States (government) and apply them meticulously in our cataloging? Do users make this distinction? Practically speaking, this would lead to much confusion I think. Thinking about this locally, that would mean we would have:
110 Washington (State : Jurisdiction)
151 Washington (State : Place)
110 Seattle (Wash. : Jurisdiction)
151 Seattle (Wash.) : Place)
And catalogers would have to be careful applying this. For example for place of birth and residence of a person:
100 1# $a Adriaansz, Peter Stewart
370 ## $a Seattle (Wash. : Place) $2 naf
370 ## $c Netherlands (Place) $2 naf
110 2# $a Harborview Medical Center (Seattle, Wash.)
370 ## $c United States (Place) $2 naf
370 ## $e Seattle (Wash. : Place) $2 naf
110 1# $a Seattle (Wash. : Jurisdiction). $b Department of Parks and Recreation
510 1# $w r $i Hierarchical superior: $a Seattle (Wash. : Jurisdiction)
110 1# $a Washington (State : Jurisdiction). ǂt Insurance code
551 ## $w r $i Jurisdiction governed: $a Washington (State : Place)
Wouldn't the element better be named "Place governed"?
It will be interesting to see the results of the Place/Jurisdiction Working Group that the RDA is convening. I'm not sure that the benefits of distinguishing these entities outweigh the drawbacks, practically speaking.
------------------------------
Adam Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
He/Him/His
Original Message:
Sent: Aug 01, 2021 04:46 PM
From: Robert Maxwell
Subject: Jurisdiction governed/Jurisdiction governed of
I agree with Adam and Stephen that new RDA seems to have it wrong (or at least needs to explain itself better), but I also point out that a *jurisdiction* is not a *place*. A jurisdiction is a Corporate Body. So in my opinion "jurisdiction governed" should be the relationship between a government (a Corporate Body, the group of persons governing the jurisdiction) and the jurisdiction it governs (a Corporate Body, including all the citizens of the jurisdiction and other persons who are governed by the government).
A government (jurisdiction) does not govern a Place (the rocks, the rivers, the air--though it may have some sort of control over those things), it governs a group of persons (the citizens of the jurisdiction, and other persons who may also be under its control). The group of persons governed--which constitute a Corporate Body--are subject to the laws enacted by the government; the rocks, rivers, and air--which constitute a Place--are not subject to those laws (a law can't order a rock or a river to behave in a particular way, though the laws may deal with how the persons governed should treat those things). So the range of Place is incorrect, in my opinion. The domain and range should both be Corporate Body.
The Work itself (the law enacted by a jurisdiction) does not govern a jurisdiction, so I suppose it isn't exactly correct to say that a jurisdiction is governed by a *Work*, and so perhaps the old RDA relationship isn't correct either.
This is yet another instance of the longstanding problem in cataloging of confusing the two entities (jurisdiction and place), including using the same description (authority record) and authorized access point to describe the two different entities. This confusion continues in the "new" RDA. A jurisdiction is an Agent (a government governs--it exercises agency; the people governed accept the government [whether voluntarily of by force]--another form of agency). A Place is an inanimate object, or an abstract concept, not capable of agency.
We could simplify things a great deal by admitting that jurisdictions are a type of Agent--Corporate Bodies--and dealing with them in the cataloging rules as Corporate Bodies, separating them from the Place entity.
Bob
Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568
"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
Original Message:
Sent: 8/1/2021 4:35:00 PM
From: Stephen McDonald
Subject: RE: Jurisdiction governed/Jurisdiction governed of
That does look odd. In the old toolkit, the element with this name is clearly a relationship between a law (work) and a jurisdiction (place). The work would have a relationship to the government enacting the law (creator) and a relationship to the place to which the law applies (jurisdiction governed).
I think an element relating a government (corporate body) to the jurisdiction which it governs (place) would be reasonable. But that's not what is being described here. From the definition in the new toolkit and from it's equivalent in the old toolkit, I would expect jurisdiction governed to relate a work to a place.
------------------------------
Stephen McDonald
Digital Initiatives Librarian
Tufts University
Original Message:
Sent: Aug 01, 2021 02:57 PM
From: Adam Schiff
Subject: Jurisdiction governed/Jurisdiction governed of
I am confused by the elements "jurisdiction governed" and "jurisdiction governed of" in new RDA. In old RDA, the element "jurisdiction governed" (6.21.1.4) is an attribute of or relationship to a work. In bibliographic records, this is recorded as a relationship to a law, regulation, etc. "jurisdiction governed" is found in Appendix I.2.2 Relationship Designators for Other Agent Associated with Work.
Examples in 6.21.1.4:
However, in new RDA, the element "jurisdiction governed" has domain Corporate body and range Place. The definition is "A place that is a jurisdiction governed by a law, regulation, etc., that was enacted by another government." That would mean something like this ( I think) in an authority record:
151 District of Columbia
551 $w r $i Jurisdiction governed of: $a United States
151 United States
551 $2 r $i Jurisdiction governed: $a District of Columbia
Am I interpreting the change to these elements correctly? I would have expected them to be used this way:
110 1# United States, $e enacting jurisdiction.
245 10 Acts of Congress affecting the District of Columbia.
710 1 $i Jurisdiction governed: $a District of Columbia
or in a work authority:
110 1# United States. $t Acts of Congress affecting the District of Columbia
710 1# $w r $i Jurisdiction governed: $a District of Columbia
710 1# $w r $i Enacting jurisdiction: $a United States
Does it make much sense to relate corporate body to place and place to corporate body the way new RDA is doing?
------------------------------
Adam Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
He/Him/His
------------------------------