Tagged ALA proposal, Australian Committee on Cataloging, Behrens, Canadian Committee on Cataloguing, European Regional Representative, Glennan, jurisdiction, Kartus, Leonard, Library of Congress, Reser, variant access points. Bookmark the permalink.
As noted by Robert Rendall (above), the community responses are mixed to this proposal. I need to know if ALA wants me to issue a revised proposal, and if so, what it should say.
I will describe the different approaches below; please "reply" with comments on the specific approach.
The CCC response suggests that naming any law by the issuing jurisdiction goes against practices for similar types of law works, such as treaties involving multiple signatories.
2. Make the current paragraph the 2nd paragraph in the revised instruction, keeping the existing example.
I think I like this approach.
I agree with Robert Rendell, that if we need to make a decision quickly, I prefer CCC's approach. It also avoids the known/unknown dichtomy, as Kathy says.
The LC response suggests keeping ALA's proposed paragraph relating to a single law from a single known enacting jurisdiction.
If it goes as LC suggests, I would propose that we add the example of "Le coustumier d'Aniou et du Maine" to the instruction about customary laws (6.29.1.6).
FYI, I am working with Robert Bratton to create a revised proposal. The desired outcome from AALL's perspective is to create the AAP for these laws using: 1) the title and 2) the names of the governed jurisdictions, enclosed in parentheses.