If you have questions that you would like to share with your fellow law catalogers, please send them to the authors of this column.
The Berlin Wall came tumbling down more than five years ago. Most catalogers have now been using the heading "Germany" long enough that the former West Germany and East Germany are a distant memory. Except for law catalogers, however. The consolidation of the two East and West Germany still creates lingering problems when cataloging legal materials.
Several years ago, LC made the decision to retain the headings for the former Germany (East) and Germany (West) when the two countries reunited in a single Germany.1 Germany (East) and Germany (West) remain valid headings for these jurisdictions from approximately 1955-1990. (See: LC authority records n 80125938 and n 80125937). All corporate body headings and subject subdivisions use the appropriate Germany (East) or Germany (West) for works published during the period when there were two countries. For instance,
010 n9227659 110 10 Germany.$bBundesamt fur Strahlenschutz ... 510 10 $w$aGermany (West).$bBundesamt fur Strahlenschutz
Records for East Germany statutes retain the jurisdictional heading Germany (East). Thus, for East Germany all catalog records needing jurisdiction/uniform title headings enacted during the period from 1955-1990 are still entered under Germany (East).
For law catalogers, a problem arises when attempting to apply jurisdiction/uniform titles to catalog records for West German laws. LC decided to abandon the heading Germany (West) for jurisdiction/uniform titles assigned to records for West German laws enacted from 1955-1990.
With respect to Germany, LC will proceed as follows:
1) the only workable solution for looseleaf
publications is a single record under Germany
(the form of heading for the jurisdiction);
2) this solution will also be applied to other non-
looseleaf manifestations of the same law, code,
etc. to preclude the need to make complicated,
and possibly incomprehensible, notes on the
record for these non-looseleaf manifestations;
3) we will implement the practice described
above on a case-by-case basis; as we newly
catalog an edition of a work (law, code, etc.), we
will also revise all name authorities and
bibliographic records for the other editions of that
work already in the catalog.
...Note that because there were several pre-AACR2 forms of heading, no linking references are
1) the only workable solution for looseleaf publications is a single record under Germany (the form of heading for the jurisdiction);
2) this solution will also be applied to other non- looseleaf manifestations of the same law, code, etc. to preclude the need to make complicated, and possibly incomprehensible, notes on the record for these non-looseleaf manifestations;
3) we will implement the practice described above on a case-by-case basis; as we newly catalog an edition of a work (law, code, etc.), we will also revise all name authorities and bibliographic records for the other editions of that work already in the catalog.
...Note that because there were several pre-AACR2 forms of heading, no linking references are made.2
Consequently, LC has substituted the heading Germany for the heading Germany (West) on records for West German laws. LC has revised authority and bibliographic records for these jurisdiction/uniform titles for acts -- eliminating (West) as a qualifier from the heading. Thus, the bibliographic record for a monograph may have a main entry or an added entry for Germany even though the work was issued prior to 1990. In the example LCCN 81102477, only a 667 note explains that this act was at one time entered under German (West) or the pre-AACR2 heading Germany (Federal Republic, 1949-). There is no see reference made from Germany (West) on the authority record.
010 n 81102477 110 10 Germany. $tKartellgesetz ... 667 Under earlier cataloging rules, the Kartellgesetz was entered in the following ways: 1) Germany (Federal Republic, 1949-). Laws, statutes, etc. Kartellgesetz; and 2) Germany (West). Kartellgesetz.
Why is this a problem? What does it matter if the heading Germany (West) neither appears on the bibliographic records nor as a cross reference in the authority records? Let's answer by posing another question: How will users be able to locate a particular West German act? If the cataloging staff conscientiously implements LC policy, there will be no name/title entries in the catalog for West German acts. Only by creating multilayered complex search strategies will the staff or users have a chance of identifying the laws of West Germany from 1955-1990. It will be confusing at best for the users if they find a record like LCCN 88142932. The qualifier (West) has been removed from the jurisdiction heading in the main entry, but it continues to be used in the ministry 710 heading. The subject headings reflect the correct jurisdiction governed at the time of publication, that of Germany (West). The heading for Germany in the 110 field looks like an error, but it is not according to current LC practice.
010 88142932//r92 040 DLC$cDLC$dDLC 043 e-gw---$ae------ 110 1 Germany. 240 10 Abfallgesetz 245 10 Gesetz uber die Vermeidung und Entsorgung von Abfallen (Abfallgeset z-AbfG):$bvom 27. Aug. 1986 : Gesetzestext mit Begr... 260 Koln :$bBundesanzeiger,$cc1986. 300 221 p. :$bforms ;$c25 cm. 650 0 Refuse and refuse disposal$xLaw and legislation$zGermany (West) 650 0 Refuse and refuse disposal$xLaw and legislation$zEuropean Economic Community countries. 710 10 Germany (West).$bBundesministerium fur Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit.
Does this choice by LC to change the form of heading on acts to Germany make sense? Yes, because the alternative could be even more confusing. According to AACR2 R 21.31, choice of entry should be the jurisdiction governed. Because the physical boundaries of the jurisdiction changed as a result of reunification, technically Germany today is a different jurisdiction from the former Germany (West). Records for uniform titles for acts could have been made with "search also under" (510 references) from the earlier form of the jurisdiction/act headings to the later form. For instance,
110 10 Germany (West).$tDeutsches Richtergesetz (1972) 510 10 Germany.$tDeutsches Richtergesetz (1972)
Would the qualifying dates involved have been confusing? Definitely. However, to make a cross-reference from Germany (West) on the authority records for the jurisdiction/uniform titles now entered under Germany would be consistent with LC practice in other areas. LC makes a linking entry for later editions using the AACR2 form of the name even if the older edition has a record currently in the file with a pre-AACR2 form of name. LC could greatly assist users if at least a 410 reference for Germany (West) was added to these authority file records. Then the user would have access to West German laws published from 1955-1990.
Loose-leaf publications present a particular challenge to the descriptive and choice of entry rules. Many titles were begun during the previous jurisdiction of Germany (West) and continue to be updated today. If entered under jurisdiction, the main entry should now be changed to Germany per current LC practice. Should an added entry be made for Germany (West)? Not according to the policy quoted above. Consistent with this, LC has not made such an added entry on any record that we could discover. One could argue since the contents of a loose-leaf are gradually replaced, the text extant when Germany (West) was the jurisdiction governed may soon completely disappear--just as Germany (West) already has on many bibliographic records for West German acts published from 1955-1990.
010 94210588 040 DLC$cDLC 043 e-gx--- 245 00 Frankfurter Kommentar zum Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschrankungen :$b mit einer Darstellung auslandischer Kartellrechtsordnungen /$cherausgegeben von Helmut Glassen ... [et al.]. 246 30 Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschrankungen 246 14 GWB 260 Koln : $b O.Schmidt, $c<1982>- 300 4 v. (loose-leaf) ;$c24 cm. 504 Includes bibliographical references and index. 650 0 Restraint of trade$zGermany. 650 0 Antitrust law$zGermany. 700 1 Glassen, Helmut. 710 12 Germany.$tKartellgesetz.
In the example LCCN 94210588, we see that the 710 12 has been changed from Germany (West) to Germany. Note that the dates indicate that the loose-leaf began as a publication about West German laws on restraint of trade. Interestingly, in this bibliographic record LC has chosen to update the geographic subdivision to Germany. This change is appropriate for a loose-leaf, but not for a regular monograph. In this loose-leaf example, complete consistency completely eliminates any access to Germany (West).
2. Adele Hallam, American Association of Law Libraries Cataloging Institute, 1992, Santa Clara University School of Law, "Collective Court Names: Time for a Return?; and Other Discussions on Entry Issues," (Chicago: American Association of Law Libraries, 1992): LCRI 23.2, p. 2. [Return to text]