I wish to express my thanks to Paul Weiss of the LC Cataloging Policy and Support Office (CPSO) for answering several LCSH-related questions. The first two questions below were submitted by Harriet Zook (McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific); the third query was sent by Cindy May (University of Wisconsin Law Library); the rest came from me.
Question 1. How about a subject heading for CORPORATE COUNSEL? We find this phrase used quite a bit in the literature, but the subject headings assigned are either "Corporate legal departments" or "Corporate lawyers" or both. Can a 450 reference be added to SAR's for the valid headings? (Usage of the terminology "corporate counsel" can be found in title fields of bibliographic records with these LCCNs: 90-8393; 89-103639; 80-648695.)
LC Response: We will add this as a 450-reference to both authority records.
Question 2. There is a subject authority record for "Insurance, Uninsured motorist," but no corresponding one established for "Insurance, Underinsured motorist." We have a loose-leaf treatise published 1985- which deals with both topics. It is Alan I. Widiss' Uninsured and underinsured motorist insurance (LCCN 84-29772); on the LC copy, the second subject heading is the broad "Insurance, Automobile--Law and legislation." Would it be better to establish the specific heading to convey the "underinsured" topic?
LC Response: LC will establish UNDERINSURED MOTORIST INSURANCE as a heading. (We don't use inverted forms when we establish new headings.)
Question 3. We're confused about the subdivision --LEGAL STATUS, LAWS, ETC. when it is applied to INDIANS OF NORTH AMERICA. Is there some exception to the usual instruction that this subdivision is "(May Subd Geog)"?... because in OCLC, we find "LC" examples done both ways. I checked on this, and indeed, two LC records (94-228083 and 95-101902) have 650 fields, "Indians of North America $z Canada $x Legal status, laws, etc." as well as one other (93-31983) with "Indian children $z North America $x Legal status, laws, etc." What's going on here?
LC Response: These are errors in the bibliographic records; LC will fix them.
Question 4. On a GPO record for a Congressional committee report, there is a subject heading AIRLINES--UNITED STATES--TICKETS, but I do not see this topical subdivision authorized under "Airlines." The title of the work is Manner in which the tax on transportation by air is required to be shown on airline tickets. There is an authority record (sh85-111056) for RAILROADS--TICKETS. What should be done in this case?
LC Response: We haven't established Airlines--Tickets because we haven't had any need for the heading. We don't have the title you cite in LC, and GPO never submitted a proposal to us to establish the heading. If a proposal were to be submitted by someone, I don't see any reason why it would not be approved.
Question 5. Can we consider "Espionage" to be a service industry, and thus allow ourselves to subdivide it by --Law and legislation, in accord with SCM:SH memo H 1153? I found this combination on two records cataloged by GPO. But on LC records dealing with Espionage, the heading is not subdivided the same way. Instead I see "Intelligence service--Law and legislation" and/or "National security--Law and legislation."
LC Response: LC does not use --Law and legislation under headings for crimes or illegal activities. Espionage can be both (at least when someone else is doing it), and so we have traditionally not used --Law and legislation under it.
Question 6. I'm wondering about the subject PROSTITUTION. If this is inherently legal, then can we have a 450 reference added to the SAR with the text "Prostitution $x Law and legislation" ? On the other hand, I browsed through the entries in my university's union catalog, and it seemed like there were more bibliographic records that deal with the social and/or moral aspects or history of prostitution than with the legal aspects. Hmm... you may want to investigate this one, and consider the advisability of establishing "Prostitution--Law and legislation" on its own, instead of as a 450-reference.
LC Response: Same answer as for "Espionage."
[Alva's postscript: I will continue to pursue the 450 references, at least, for the last two instances.]