Core CC:DA Public Space

Colleagues-

NARDAC has asked for CC:DA's comments on a draft revision proposal, RSC/NARDAC/2025/4, Definition of corporate body. (See the attachment - or check for the document in this Connect space's "Library" tab.) 

This proposal asks that language from Original RDA about the definition of corporate body including events and vessels-missing from Official RDA-be restored (with some revision).

To meet NARDAC's response deadline, please reply to this post with any comments you have about this proposal.  All members of this community (whether CC:DA members or not) are welcome to comment.  I am especially interested in your comments on the two recommendations.

DEADLINE: Close of business, May 13, 2025.

Kathy

I'm not commenting on the proposed change itself, but I do have a question regarding the definition of "corporate body"-specifically the phrase "local church group identified by the name of the church." Does this suggest that local churches are treated differently from other local religious organizations that are also identified by the name of a specific religious body, such as mosques, synagogues, or temples? I'm curious why the local church is called out explicitly in the definition, and how it differs from the broader term "religious body" that is also included in this definition?  

Colleagues-

NARDAC has asked for CC:DA's comments on a draft revision proposal, RSC/NARDAC/2025/4, Definition of corporate body. (See the attachment - or check for the document in this Connect space's "Library" tab.) 

This proposal asks that language from Original RDA about the definition of corporate body including events and vessels-missing from Official RDA-be restored (with some revision).

To meet NARDAC's response deadline, please reply to this post with any comments you have about this proposal.  All members of this community (whether CC:DA members or not) are welcome to comment.  I am especially interested in your comments on the two recommendations.

DEADLINE: Close of business, May 13, 2025.

Kathy

Colleagues-

NARDAC has asked for CC:DA's comments on a draft revision proposal, RSC/NARDAC/2025/4, Definition of corporate body. (See the attachment - or check for the document in this Connect space's "Library" tab.) 

This proposal asks that language from Original RDA about the definition of corporate body including events and vessels-missing from Official RDA-be restored (with some revision).

To meet NARDAC's response deadline, please reply to this post with any comments you have about this proposal.  All members of this community (whether CC:DA members or not) are welcome to comment.  I am especially interested in your comments on the two recommendations.

DEADLINE: Close of business, May 13, 2025.

Kathy

I have some comments to share from the Law Library community:

• From Aaron Kuperman, retired from Law Library of Congress:
  • While lawyer would understand it, it should be made clear to non-lawyers that a group of people need not be formally or officially "incorporated" (which in the US require state action, sometimes by the legislature and sometimes by filling our papers with the state government)
  • Some types of associations are never officially "incorporated" such as criminal organizations (gangs) and terrorist organization who do not operate in or with the support of a government that grants them a corporate charter.
• From John Hostage, Harvard Library:

  • I propose that this definition be rewritten in proper English.  "A collective agent who ..." should be "A collective agent that ..."

    A corporate body does not "include" an association, etc.  The original RDA had it right when it said "Typical examples of corporate bodies are ..."

    The third sentence can't decide whether it is singular or plural.  Rephrase as "An event such as an athletic contest, exhibition, expedition, fair, or festival, or a vessel such as a ship or spacecraft is considered to be a corporate body."

    The definition has never said anything about being incorporated, so there is no need to introduce that now.

• From Robert Bratton, George Washington University Law Library

  • I agree with John and Aaron that the language about 'incorporation' is unnecessary.

    As John said "I propose that this definition be rewritten in proper English."  Can we please propose that for the entirety of the new RDA Toolkit?

Colleagues-

NARDAC has asked for CC:DA's comments on a draft revision proposal, RSC/NARDAC/2025/4, Definition of corporate body. (See the attachment - or check for the document in this Connect space's "Library" tab.) 

This proposal asks that language from Original RDA about the definition of corporate body including events and vessels-missing from Official RDA-be restored (with some revision).

To meet NARDAC's response deadline, please reply to this post with any comments you have about this proposal.  All members of this community (whether CC:DA members or not) are welcome to comment.  I am especially interested in your comments on the two recommendations.

DEADLINE: Close of business, May 13, 2025.

Kathy

Hi everyone, I'm taking off my CC:DA Chair hat and writing as a member of the RSC during the 3R Project.

I believe the omission of these instructions was intentional, as part of the effort to 1) remove AACR2-related legacy instructions to further promote internationalization, and 2) have Official RDA conform to the LRM standard, which was not the basis for original RDA. 

This situation also offers an opportunity to make a distinction between  "collective agent" and "corporate body" instructions in Official RDA. Prior to LRM, there was no way to describe a group of two or more persons (other than a family) without using Corporate body. Now that Collective Agent is present in Official RDA, it might really be the better location for further exploration of these issues. 

NARDAC's proposal needs to clearly articulate why reinstating these omissions 1) are necessary and not able to be addressed by policy statements or other community practice documents and 2) promote internationalization. They also need to explain why "ad hoc events" need to be corporate bodies instead of collective agents. 

I do not think that adding a list of typical corporate bodies as part of the scope note is appropriate for Official RDA.

The ad hoc events sentence also presents some problems. For example, how is an athletic contest or a vessel a collective agent as defined in LRM? (Corporate body is not in LRM but is an Official RDA refinement of Collective agent).

LRM-E8 defines Collective Agent: "A gathering or organization of persons bearing a particular name and capable of acting as a unit."

The scope note for Collective Agent includes this sentence: "Occasional groups and groups that are constituted as meetings, conferences, congresses, expeditions, exhibitions, festivals, fairs, etc., also fall under the definition of collective agent as long as they are identified by a a particular name and can act as a unit." 

Kathy

I have some comments to share from the Law Library community:

• From Aaron Kuperman, retired from Law Library of Congress:
  • While lawyer would understand it, it should be made clear to non-lawyers that a group of people need not be formally or officially "incorporated" (which in the US require state action, sometimes by the legislature and sometimes by filling our papers with the state government)
  • Some types of associations are never officially "incorporated" such as criminal organizations (gangs) and terrorist organization who do not operate in or with the support of a government that grants them a corporate charter.
• From John Hostage, Harvard Library:

  • I propose that this definition be rewritten in proper English.  "A collective agent who ..." should be "A collective agent that ..."

    A corporate body does not "include" an association, etc.  The original RDA had it right when it said "Typical examples of corporate bodies are ..."

    The third sentence can't decide whether it is singular or plural.  Rephrase as "An event such as an athletic contest, exhibition, expedition, fair, or festival, or a vessel such as a ship or spacecraft is considered to be a corporate body."

    The definition has never said anything about being incorporated, so there is no need to introduce that now.

• From Robert Bratton, George Washington University Law Library

  • I agree with John and Aaron that the language about 'incorporation' is unnecessary.

    As John said "I propose that this definition be rewritten in proper English."  Can we please propose that for the entirety of the new RDA Toolkit?

Colleagues-

NARDAC has asked for CC:DA's comments on a draft revision proposal, RSC/NARDAC/2025/4, Definition of corporate body. (See the attachment - or check for the document in this Connect space's "Library" tab.) 

This proposal asks that language from Original RDA about the definition of corporate body including events and vessels-missing from Official RDA-be restored (with some revision).

To meet NARDAC's response deadline, please reply to this post with any comments you have about this proposal.  All members of this community (whether CC:DA members or not) are welcome to comment.  I am especially interested in your comments on the two recommendations.

DEADLINE: Close of business, May 13, 2025.

Kathy

I support removing the term "ad hoc"-it may confuse catalogers when determining what qualifies under that label.
Since this definition will also be revised in the glossary (Recommendation #2)  it would be helpful to make it as clear and unambiguous as possible in the Official  RDA, especially for new catalogers who may not be familiar with the development and evolution of the rules/instructions. 

Hi everyone, I'm taking off my CC:DA Chair hat and writing as a member of the RSC during the 3R Project.

I believe the omission of these instructions was intentional, as part of the effort to 1) remove AACR2-related legacy instructions to further promote internationalization, and 2) have Official RDA conform to the LRM standard, which was not the basis for original RDA. 

This situation also offers an opportunity to make a distinction between  "collective agent" and "corporate body" instructions in Official RDA. Prior to LRM, there was no way to describe a group of two or more persons (other than a family) without using Corporate body. Now that Collective Agent is present in Official RDA, it might really be the better location for further exploration of these issues. 

NARDAC's proposal needs to clearly articulate why reinstating these omissions 1) are necessary and not able to be addressed by policy statements or other community practice documents and 2) promote internationalization. They also need to explain why "ad hoc events" need to be corporate bodies instead of collective agents. 

I do not think that adding a list of typical corporate bodies as part of the scope note is appropriate for Official RDA.

The ad hoc events sentence also presents some problems. For example, how is an athletic contest or a vessel a collective agent as defined in LRM? (Corporate body is not in LRM but is an Official RDA refinement of Collective agent).

LRM-E8 defines Collective Agent: "A gathering or organization of persons bearing a particular name and capable of acting as a unit."

The scope note for Collective Agent includes this sentence: "Occasional groups and groups that are constituted as meetings, conferences, congresses, expeditions, exhibitions, festivals, fairs, etc., also fall under the definition of collective agent as long as they are identified by a a particular name and can act as a unit." 

Kathy

I have some comments to share from the Law Library community:

• From Aaron Kuperman, retired from Law Library of Congress:
  • While lawyer would understand it, it should be made clear to non-lawyers that a group of people need not be formally or officially "incorporated" (which in the US require state action, sometimes by the legislature and sometimes by filling our papers with the state government)
  • Some types of associations are never officially "incorporated" such as criminal organizations (gangs) and terrorist organization who do not operate in or with the support of a government that grants them a corporate charter.
• From John Hostage, Harvard Library:

  • I propose that this definition be rewritten in proper English.  "A collective agent who ..." should be "A collective agent that ..."

    A corporate body does not "include" an association, etc.  The original RDA had it right when it said "Typical examples of corporate bodies are ..."

    The third sentence can't decide whether it is singular or plural.  Rephrase as "An event such as an athletic contest, exhibition, expedition, fair, or festival, or a vessel such as a ship or spacecraft is considered to be a corporate body."

    The definition has never said anything about being incorporated, so there is no need to introduce that now.

• From Robert Bratton, George Washington University Law Library

  • I agree with John and Aaron that the language about 'incorporation' is unnecessary.

    As John said "I propose that this definition be rewritten in proper English."  Can we please propose that for the entirety of the new RDA Toolkit?

Colleagues-

NARDAC has asked for CC:DA's comments on a draft revision proposal, RSC/NARDAC/2025/4, Definition of corporate body. (See the attachment - or check for the document in this Connect space's "Library" tab.) 

This proposal asks that language from Original RDA about the definition of corporate body including events and vessels-missing from Official RDA-be restored (with some revision).

To meet NARDAC's response deadline, please reply to this post with any comments you have about this proposal.  All members of this community (whether CC:DA members or not) are welcome to comment.  I am especially interested in your comments on the two recommendations.

DEADLINE: Close of business, May 13, 2025.

Kathy

Hi everyone-

I heard directly from Dominique Bourassa, who let me know that she was unable to respond publicly to comments on this thread. If any of the rest of you find yourself in that situation, please email me and I can post your comments on your behalf. Dominique gave me permission to share the following:

---

I remember some of the discussions during the 3R Project about collective agent and corporate body. There were two papers from ORDAC suggesting new definitions for these entities and also suggesting creating a new entity called collective event.  CC:DA 3R Task Force members discussed these papers. I remembered there were a lot of objections from task from task force members. 

In the minutes of the RSC 2019 meeting, there is information about RSC discussions on this topic. One of the action item was:  "The RSC will consider setting up a working group to explore creating a separate entity to represent occasional groups in RDA. This will be discussed further when setting up the three-year operational plan (see 192)." Number 180 on this document: https://www.rdatoolkit.org/sites/default/files/rsc/RSC-Minutes-Public-159-204.pdf

---

Kathy

I support removing the term "ad hoc"-it may confuse catalogers when determining what qualifies under that label.
Since this definition will also be revised in the glossary (Recommendation #2)  it would be helpful to make it as clear and unambiguous as possible in the Official  RDA, especially for new catalogers who may not be familiar with the development and evolution of the rules/instructions. 

Hi everyone, I'm taking off my CC:DA Chair hat and writing as a member of the RSC during the 3R Project.

I believe the omission of these instructions was intentional, as part of the effort to 1) remove AACR2-related legacy instructions to further promote internationalization, and 2) have Official RDA conform to the LRM standard, which was not the basis for original RDA. 

This situation also offers an opportunity to make a distinction between  "collective agent" and "corporate body" instructions in Official RDA. Prior to LRM, there was no way to describe a group of two or more persons (other than a family) without using Corporate body. Now that Collective Agent is present in Official RDA, it might really be the better location for further exploration of these issues. 

NARDAC's proposal needs to clearly articulate why reinstating these omissions 1) are necessary and not able to be addressed by policy statements or other community practice documents and 2) promote internationalization. They also need to explain why "ad hoc events" need to be corporate bodies instead of collective agents. 

I do not think that adding a list of typical corporate bodies as part of the scope note is appropriate for Official RDA.

The ad hoc events sentence also presents some problems. For example, how is an athletic contest or a vessel a collective agent as defined in LRM? (Corporate body is not in LRM but is an Official RDA refinement of Collective agent).

LRM-E8 defines Collective Agent: "A gathering or organization of persons bearing a particular name and capable of acting as a unit."

The scope note for Collective Agent includes this sentence: "Occasional groups and groups that are constituted as meetings, conferences, congresses, expeditions, exhibitions, festivals, fairs, etc., also fall under the definition of collective agent as long as they are identified by a a particular name and can act as a unit." 

Kathy

I have some comments to share from the Law Library community:

• From Aaron Kuperman, retired from Law Library of Congress:
  • While lawyer would understand it, it should be made clear to non-lawyers that a group of people need not be formally or officially "incorporated" (which in the US require state action, sometimes by the legislature and sometimes by filling our papers with the state government)
  • Some types of associations are never officially "incorporated" such as criminal organizations (gangs) and terrorist organization who do not operate in or with the support of a government that grants them a corporate charter.
• From John Hostage, Harvard Library:

  • I propose that this definition be rewritten in proper English.  "A collective agent who ..." should be "A collective agent that ..."

    A corporate body does not "include" an association, etc.  The original RDA had it right when it said "Typical examples of corporate bodies are ..."

    The third sentence can't decide whether it is singular or plural.  Rephrase as "An event such as an athletic contest, exhibition, expedition, fair, or festival, or a vessel such as a ship or spacecraft is considered to be a corporate body."

    The definition has never said anything about being incorporated, so there is no need to introduce that now.

• From Robert Bratton, George Washington University Law Library

  • I agree with John and Aaron that the language about 'incorporation' is unnecessary.

    As John said "I propose that this definition be rewritten in proper English."  Can we please propose that for the entirety of the new RDA Toolkit?

Colleagues-

NARDAC has asked for CC:DA's comments on a draft revision proposal, RSC/NARDAC/2025/4, Definition of corporate body. (See the attachment - or check for the document in this Connect space's "Library" tab.) 

This proposal asks that language from Original RDA about the definition of corporate body including events and vessels-missing from Official RDA-be restored (with some revision).

To meet NARDAC's response deadline, please reply to this post with any comments you have about this proposal.  All members of this community (whether CC:DA members or not) are welcome to comment.  I am especially interested in your comments on the two recommendations.

DEADLINE: Close of business, May 13, 2025.

Kathy

Colleagues-

NARDAC has asked for CC:DA's comments on a draft revision proposal, RSC/NARDAC/2025/4, Definition of corporate body. (See the attachment - or check for the document in this Connect space's "Library" tab.) 

This proposal asks that language from Original RDA about the definition of corporate body including events and vessels-missing from Official RDA-be restored (with some revision).

To meet NARDAC's response deadline, please reply to this post with any comments you have about this proposal.  All members of this community (whether CC:DA members or not) are welcome to comment.  I am especially interested in your comments on the two recommendations.

DEADLINE: Close of business, May 13, 2025.

Kathy

I am also mixed like Jessica about including a list of examples in the definition for "corporate body", which while helpful, can be misconstrued as being a comprehensive list, especially with the proposed definition of "includes an association..."  If examples are included in the definition for corporate body, I agree with John Hostage that the Original RDA text of "Typical examples of corporate bodies are.." would be a better way to phrase that.  

I also agree with others that the "ad hoc" is problematic and that "Collective Agent" rather than the definition for "corporate body" would be a more appropriate place to flesh out the distinctions in instructions between "corporate body" and "collective agent".

Colleagues-

NARDAC has asked for CC:DA's comments on a draft revision proposal, RSC/NARDAC/2025/4, Definition of corporate body. (See the attachment - or check for the document in this Connect space's "Library" tab.) 

This proposal asks that language from Original RDA about the definition of corporate body including events and vessels-missing from Official RDA-be restored (with some revision).

To meet NARDAC's response deadline, please reply to this post with any comments you have about this proposal.  All members of this community (whether CC:DA members or not) are welcome to comment.  I am especially interested in your comments on the two recommendations.

DEADLINE: Close of business, May 13, 2025.

Kathy

I am also mixed like Jessica about including a list of examples in the definition for "corporate body", which while helpful, can be misconstrued as being a comprehensive list, especially with the proposed definition of "includes an association..."  If examples are included in the definition for corporate body, I agree with John Hostage that the Original RDA text of "Typical examples of corporate bodies are.." would be a better way to phrase that.  

I also agree with others that the "ad hoc" is problematic and that "Collective Agent" rather than the definition for "corporate body" would be a more appropriate place to flesh out the distinctions in instructions between "corporate body" and "collective agent".

Colleagues-

NARDAC has asked for CC:DA's comments on a draft revision proposal, RSC/NARDAC/2025/4, Definition of corporate body. (See the attachment - or check for the document in this Connect space's "Library" tab.) 

This proposal asks that language from Original RDA about the definition of corporate body including events and vessels-missing from Official RDA-be restored (with some revision).

To meet NARDAC's response deadline, please reply to this post with any comments you have about this proposal.  All members of this community (whether CC:DA members or not) are welcome to comment.  I am especially interested in your comments on the two recommendations.

DEADLINE: Close of business, May 13, 2025.

Kathy

Colleagues-

NARDAC has asked for CC:DA's comments on a draft revision proposal, RSC/NARDAC/2025/4, Definition of corporate body. (See the attachment - or check for the document in this Connect space's "Library" tab.) 

This proposal asks that language from Original RDA about the definition of corporate body including events and vessels-missing from Official RDA-be restored (with some revision).

To meet NARDAC's response deadline, please reply to this post with any comments you have about this proposal.  All members of this community (whether CC:DA members or not) are welcome to comment.  I am especially interested in your comments on the two recommendations.

DEADLINE: Close of business, May 13, 2025.

Kathy