Access Points: Corporate Bodies
A name authority record (NAR) is a record containing the authorized or standardized form of name for entities, for example, personal names, corporate names, or geographic names.
NARs are important and useful to all kinds of library-based descriptions such as catalog records, finding aids, and records for digital collections. While they may function in different ways given the cataloging/metadata system and record-type, the primary uses of NARs include identifying entities, differentiating between entities with the same name, and collocating materials related to a particular named entity, for example, collocating all works created by an author under an author’s name. A NAR may also contain additional information on an entity, for example, variant names used by the entity as well as certain demographic information such as those related to dates, places, and ethnic groups. It will also typically include sources used for determining the information contained in the record.
NARs form the basis of authorized access points in finding aids or bibliographic records in a library’s catalog. The Library of Congress Name Authority File (LCNAF) is an example of a national level file of NARs but institutions can also maintain local authority files for corporate names. However, an access point may not be backed by an authority record. Nonetheless, access points are key to the user’s search and discovery of a library’s information resources as they represent the preferred terms to be used by the user for search and retrieval. Users, then, interact a great deal with access points and potentially the authority records that often back them.
Catalogers who create authority records should therefore consider the ethical implications of information entered into an authority record or even the form of name in access points they create. This section highlights some of the ethical considerations involved in creating authority records for corporate names and access points for names not backed by authority records.
Corporate body names are constructed in the same manner as Personal Names. For example, this corporate body is a publisher, the name is transcribed from the source with a qualifier: #Blkgrlswurld (Publisher).
Corporate Bodies and Ethical Considerations in NARs and Name Access Points
The current MARC cataloging standard RDA defines corporate bodies as "an organization or group of persons and/or organizations that is identified by a particular name and that acts, or may act, as a unit." These can include different types of organizations ranging from large companies, academic institutions, research institutes, grass roots and non-profit organizations, community archives, and even hate groups.
Corporate bodies have not usually been included in discussions related to ethical considerations related to name authority records. There is significant scholarship guiding the ethical considerations at stake in creating and recording information for personal name authority records. When creating personal name authority records, for example, catalogers are now more aware of appropriately recording only those attributes that do not violate a person privacy (for example gender, birth dates) or can be verified by sources created or approved by the individual themselves. However, information recorded in corporate body records can also have significant ethical implications. Research has shown that nation states, particularly the US, can have an outsized influence on how certain groups are perceived globally (Masri & Phillips, 2021) and cataloging biases can be reflected in information found in authority records for corporate bodies. In the OCLC database authority records for groups identified as religious militants are more often tied to Islam. For example, a keyword search (performed on December 3, 2024) for "religious militant*" yields 5 relevant results for corporate bodies (3 tied to Islam and 1 each tied to Christianity and Hinduism); a search for "religious militants" as an entity attribute yields only one relevant result of a corporate body tied to Islam. At the same time current RDA rules favor adding information in authority records backed by URIs that support linked data initiatives for wider sharing of information across online platforms. The Program for Cooperative Cataloging has undertaken pilot projects to add URIs in MARC name authority records and to create Wikidata items that are available as linked open data. Ethical considerations, then, can become even more important in a linked data environment where data are shared and reused in multiple ways.
NARS: MARC–Use of Entity Attributes
Similar to personal names, corporate body authority records in the MARC 21 format allow for several fields (3XX) to describe attributes of a corporate body. The two most common fields that include data with ethical implications are MARC field 368 (type of corporate body) and MARC field 372 (field of activity). MARC field 373 (associated group) is used to describe associated institutions for conferences and related entities of a corporate body.
- How do the use of entity attributes help in the identification of a corporate body? Conversely, if entity attributes are not used, does the record serve the purpose of disambiguation and accurate identification of a corporate body?
- How would a cataloger justify the use of particular entity attributes in an authority record? What would be considered an authoritative source of information especially in cases where organizations are identified in particular ways by the state as opposed to in other published literature (for example, groups that may be identified as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center, but describe themselves in very different terms in their own publications)?
- How do the use of entity attributes help foreground certain information about a corporate body? What impact does it have on how a corporate body is perceived by the user in search and discovery results?
- How would a cataloger record corporate body name information when cataloging resources that represent particular perspectives on disputed geographic areas?
Using entity attributes in MARC field 368
An entity attribute often used to describe corporate bodies is the MARC 21 field 368, subfield $a "Type of corporate body." The use of terms from vocabularies such as LCSH in the 368 field can add context to a corporate body name. However, the "type" of corporate body can be identified variously in the different sources that name the body, especially for political organizations. Cataloger’s judgment is needed to differentiate between the entity’s self-identification and external sources of information. In this way, corporate body names follow the same principle as personal names. Corporate body descriptions can therefore depend on the literature available to the cataloger as well as on the cataloger's judgment.
National Organizing Committee (Chicago, Ill.)
368 __ |a Communist parties |2 lcsh
In this example, the cataloger(s) chose the LCSH term "Communist parties" to reflect the type of corporate body. The use of the term is based on the cataloger’s judgment of the material in hand and publicly available information.
Racial Nationalist Party of America
368 __ |a Hate groups |2 lcsh
In this example, the cataloger(s) chose the LCSH term "Hate groups" to reflect the type of corporate body. This corporate body is currently dissolved and publicly named as a "hate group."
The following two groups–Heritage Connection Band and European-American Unity and Rights Organization– have also been identified as "hate groups" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. However, their authority records do not identify them as such.
368 __ |a Musical groups |2 lcsh
There are ethical implications for adding information but excluding information could make invisible meaningful facts to users and other catalogers. For example, corporate bodies can appear innocuous when in fact the entities publish harmful and discriminatory material about other communities. Omitting this detail removes the context of the corporate body and can potentially impact the cataloging of the corporate body’s published materials. For example, if a cataloger is given a CD produced by Heritage Connection Band, and they are unfamiliar with the ideology of the band, the only information that the band promotes white supremacy is through the authority record if the title and song tracks aren’t obvious. Catalogers are encouraged to add 3xx as appropriate to both old and new records to help with identification and disambiguation.
European-American Unity and Rights Organization
368 __ |a Pressure groups |2 lcsh
In this example, the cataloger(s) chose the LCSH "Pressure groups" to describe the type of corporate body, and decided it did not fit within the scope of the LCSH term "Hate groups."
Using entity attributes in MARC field 372
Field 372 can be a space for added context regarding the entity. MARC 21 defines this field for corporate bodies as: "a field of business in which the corporate body is engaged, its area of competence, responsibility, jurisdiction, etc." The field uses subject headings (for example vocabularies like LCSH) to convey this information. Using this field can help highlight work by community organizations and archives and can help bring visibility to underrepresented groups. Conversely, not using the field can make this work invisible.
June L. Mazer Lesbian Archives
In this example, the cataloger(s) chose to add the following LCSH terms in field 372:
372 _|a Archives |a Archival resources |a Lesbianism |2 lcsh
The addition of a field of work adds more visibility to underrepresented communities such as Lesbian people, in this case the LCSH term chosen was "Lesbianism," which then allows this archive to be collocated with other corporate bodies involved in the same field of work.
In this example, the cataloger(s) chose to add the following LCSH terms in field 372:
372 __ |a African American theater |a Musical theater |a Anti-racism |2 lcsh
The cataloger(s) added key demographic terms in the 372 (field of work) that cannot be accessed through other MARC 21 fields. Alternatively, if the cataloger did not add the term "African American theater," this underrepresented demographic term would not be retrievable by subject searching. The addition of the LCSH term "Anti-racism" reflects a distinct facet of the corporate body’s mission and justifies the addition of "African American theater."
The LCNAF record for this organization is brief, there are no entity attribute fields (3xx) and only has one 670 (source citation) field. The name is an established access point and can be used to collocate material, however by not including field of work or other entity attributes other catalog users will not discover the entity through topical or keyword searches. Alternatively, a cataloger could add field of work subject terms to reflect the archive’s distinctive work in Scandinavian studies and Finnish-American heritage.
Using entity attributes in MARC field 373
Privacy issues are also relevant to describing corporate bodies. In NACO authority records, field 373 allows for one to enter associated groups. Similarly, MARC field 5xx is used for linking related personal/corporate body names (See Also From Tracing-Personal Name). Some groups that are operating under a certain level of privacy, for example clandestine or underground organizations operating in secrecy, might not want to name specific people for there can be harm or repercussions for their involvement. If the organization is no longer active, including this information can aid in historical contextualization. According to the PCC Guidelines for the Application of Relationship Designators in NACO Authority Records, a cataloger's judgment should be used to decide whether these relationships need to be recorded.
https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/guidelines/authority-relationships.pdf
NARs: MARC-Use of Contested Names of Geographic Entities in Corporate Name Headings
Corporate body names often include names of jurisdictions. Common examples of these include government bodies or bodies qualified by the name of a jurisdiction. However jurisdiction names can be sometimes problematic from an ethical perspective when the names/administration of these jurisdictions are disputed.
- What should the cataloger consider an authoritative source of information when deciding on the name of a disputed territory in an authority record?
- What information should the cataloger include in an authority record for a disputed territory? Should ethical considerations make it necessary for the cataloger to illustrate the disputed history of the territory?
- Can incorporating the disputed history of a region in its authority record impact the way publications are cataloged from entities operating in this region (for example government entities)?
Consider the region identified variously as “Azad Kashmir” or “Pakistan occupied Kashmir.” It was established in 1947 after the partition of India. It is regarded by Pakistan as “independent,” even though it is protected by and economically and administratively linked to Pakistan.” (Britannica, “Azad Kashmir”) The claim is disputed by India which refers to the area as “Pakistan occupied Kashmir.” In the LCNAF record, the cataloger(s) has chosen to identify the region as “Azad Kashmir (Pakistan).” The 670s list the various sources consulted by them. All government entities operating in this region are listed under the heading “Azad Kashmir (Pakistan)” in LCNAF.
Government bodies listed under the heading "Azad Kashmir(Pakistan)"
In the LC linked data interface for authority files, the record for “Azad Kashmir (Pakistan)” is linked to the Wikidata entry for “Azad Kashmir.” However, Wikidata’s metadata which is community sourced also includes “Pak Occupied Kashmir (PoK)” as one of the names of this region.
LCNAF record in LC’s linked data services (id.loc.gov):
NARs: Digital Collections
Systems used by digital libraries sometimes use separate files for storing name authority records which could be taken from LCNAF or are locally created. DLCS, a metadata management system used in the past by the UCLA Digital Library Program (DLP) used such a file. In the current metadata management system used by the DLP, there is no separate authority file maintained; however there is a field for inputting data that needs to be selected from a drop-down list. A controlled list of “authorized names” therefore needs to be maintained locally (for example in a spreadsheet) that provides the data for the drop-down list.
Although this system lacks authority file capabilities, DLP metadata have established guidelines for creating names for particular collections. These guidelines support record creation that aid user discovery, especially for entities who are not well known.
In this example, both corporate names and personal names are available as access points which users can select for name searches.
https://digital.library.ucla.edu/catalog/ark:/21198/zz002k833q
NARs: Archival Materials
Archival finding aids will generally rely on established name authority files in describing creators or contributors, and there are also provisions for how to construct an archival authority record in DACS Part II. Because these records are not currently part of a national or international database (at least at UCLA), there is no formal training required as for LCNAF headings and archival authority records are locally maintained and created. In addition to archival authority records, biographical notes for the creator in a finding aid can include more information than would be usually included in an authority record. (see: DACS 2.7 Administrative/Biographical History)
In the future, UCLA may be part of more coordinated cooperative catalogs of archival authorities, but this is not the case now. EAD-CPF, an approved XML schema for communicating historical/biographical information about corporate bodies, people, and families, (see: https://www2.archivists.org/node/23669) allows for the encoding of archival name authorities and has been implemented at some institutions. In a network such as UVa’s Social Networks and Archival Context (SNAC: https://portal.snaccooperative.org/about), archival authorities and EAD-CPF records can/will function similarly to databases like LCNAF. Unlike locally maintained archival authorities and their encoded EAD-CPF records, participation in SNAC requires paid institutional membership and training, akin to NACO or the PCC’s Subject Authority Cooperative Program (SACO).
Wikidata
Wikidata is used for creating corporate body authority records in a linked data environment. Within Wikidata, there are expanded options for description as compared to MARC21. Although ethical issues are often associated with describing persons, there are also ethical considerations for describing corporate bodies. Ethical issues occur when naming people affiliated with the corporate body, and including personal information such as addresses, phone numbers, contact information, etc in a Wikidata item. Wikidata items also do not adhere to any specific metadata application profile and can vary in terms of how an organization is identified. Metadata found in Wikidata is community provided, sometimes even by bots, and reflects the perspectives of the metadata creators and sources used.
The PCC URIs in MARC pilot added and updated corporate body NARs and related Wikidata items. Examples include academic departments, buildings, and research centers. Through this Pilot a metadata application profile was created for corporate bodies.
Wikidata URIs are regularly added to NARS. However:
- Would we consider linking a NAR to an existing Wikidata item even if the item contains sensitive or other information that can be considered a violation of an individual’s privacy?
- Would we choose to link a NAR to a Wikidata item because the latter contains additional/contradictory information not found in the NAR? Would we update the NAR itself with the relevant information? Would we ensure that the Wikidata information is accurate before we link a NAR to a Wikidata item? (Note: Wikidata’s metadata is also constantly changing so item information appearing accurate and not undermining ethical considerations at any given time may not be so in the future).
This is a Wikidata item for an academic department (UCLA Center for Near Eastern Studies) containing the name of the director of the department. Even though the inclusion of the Director’s name of an established academic department may not amount to a violation of privacy, one can click on the Director’s name and see the Wikidata item for the individual. For example, the Wikidata item for Ali Behdad identified as the Center’s Director includes information on their birthdate (added in this case by a bot) which can be seen as revealing personal information.
Wikidata item for UCLA Center for Near East Studies.
This is a Wikidata item for the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) identifying it as a “political party” using the Wikidata property “instance of.” In Wikipedia, it is identified as a militant organization. The linked LCNAF entry from Wikidata for ULFA does not make any attempts to use entity attributes to identify the type of organization.
LCNAF record for ULFA in id.loc.gov
Bibliography
There has not been much research on ethical issues focused specifically on corporate body authority records. The following (non-exhaustive) list of resources primarily discuss ethical issues in name authorities and corporate body authority records in general, but they can provide the framework for further thinking on ethical issues in relation to corporate body NARs.
Allyson Carlyle, “Cataloging Research Guided by Values,” Library Resources & Technical Services 54, no. 3 (2010): 126-128, https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.54n3.126
Amber Billey, “Just Because We Can, Doesn’t Mean We Should: An Argument for Simplicity and Data Privacy With Name Authority Work in the Linked Data Environment,” Journal of Library Metadata 19, no. 1-2 (2019): 2, https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2019.1589684
Ben Abrahamse, “Corporate Bodies: Access Points and Authority Control,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 59, no. 2-3 (2021): 254, https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2020.1854914
Jane Sandberg ed. Ethical Questions in Name Authority Control, (Sacramento, CA: Library Juice Press, 2019).
John Hostage (2019) Updating Place Names in the Name Authority File to Reflect Political Realities: The Cases of Crimea, Taiwan, and Myanmar, Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 57:6, 407-422, https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2019.1658676
Joshua Steverman, “Problems with Authority,” Library Tech Talk (blog) (University of Michigan Library, August 10, 2017), https://apps.lib.umich.edu/blogs/library-tech-talk/Problems-authority
Paromita Biswas (2022) Can CONSER Lead the Way? Considering Ethical Implications for Corporate Bodies in Name Authority Records, Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 60:5, 387-399, https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2022.2086334