Comments on Draft Part I
CEAL RDA Review Subcommittee of the
Committee on Technical Processing
Submitted Feb. 7, 2006
General comments:
·
Questioning
whether RDA achieves what is described in its prospectus
Under
section “A new approach” 3rd paragraph: “RDA is being developed to
provide a better fit with emerging database technologies, and to take advantage
of the efficiencies and flexibility that such technologies offer with respect
to data capture, storage, retrieval, and display.” Reading through the drafts, I don’t feel that
RDA is getting to where it is intended to be:
o
Can RDA be applied
for automatic data capturing? And at what level? Or it is still too detailed
and complicated for doing so? Why do I still feel that RDA is AACR2 wrapped in
a different form/structure (or, as others have commented, that it is still print-centered)
o
Regarding
transcription of non-roman languages and scripts, RDA has to address two ways
of transcription that it doesn’t address clearly and adequately: transcription
in original languages and scripts and transcription in transliterated forms
(Romanization) following standard romanization schemes. Otherwise, how can we
take advantage of the efficiencies and flexibility that the database
technologies offer with respect to storage and retrieval information and
resources that encompass all languages and scripts?
o
After reading the UC
Bibliographic Services Task Force report (http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/sopag/BSTF/Final.pdf)
and watching a webcast of Rick Anderson’s program
“Always a river, sometimes a library” (http://www.dupagepress.com/COD/index.php?id=984no)
one would wonder how RDA would help satisfy the needs of various communities in
supporting and enabling bibliographic services and for libraries to “remain
viable in the information marketplace.”
·
Concerns with lack
of rule provisions specifically designed to cases related to CJK and other
non-roman languages and scripts.
o
Even though
"RDA will be more principle-based" (according to CC:DA Midwinter
report), I hope that the many examples and suggested rules (not reviewed yet)
will help us to make a substantive appeal to JSC for provisions of CJK and
other non-roman scripts in RDA.
·
Concerns about
future decisions on rule 2.2. source of information
During
CC:DA meetings at ALA Midwinter in
o
If entire resource
is source of information, are we going to make more notes regarding where data
is taken from for transcription?
o
If not, how would
copy cataloger verify the record against a resource in hand and be sure that
what she has is the same manifestation the record represented?
o
Without knowing
where data is taken from within a resource, would copy cataloging still
maintain the same degree of effectiveness and efficiency as with AACR2 or
improve?
o
How about dealing
with automatic capturing/harvesting data from digital resources or from print
materials when technology makes it possible? A software program needs human
intervention to indicate where to capture data for transcription. Knowing a
preferred source of information other than the entire resource would be more
easily programmed than using the entire resource.
·
Concerns with lack
of CJK and other non-roman language examples:
o
It is difficult to
read RDA drafts while ignoring the examples, especially when RDA lacks CJK and
other non-roman language examples. We are greatly concerned about the fact that
the Examples Working group is behind schedule in terms of incorporating
examples into the drafts for review. For the purpose of getting drafts
effectively reviewed in near future, JSC needs to adjust the Examples Working
group’s scheduling to ensure that examples for draft part II and part III are
provided along with the rules when they become available for review.
o
The lack of CJK
examples sometimes creates barrier to CJK catalogers’ reviewing. It’s not clear what the guidelines are for
specific instances,
which may be unique to CJK cataloging. Should we replace the English-language terms
specified in RDA with terms appropriate for use in the CJK context, .e.g., . unknown publisher,?
o
Members feel
strongly that there is a need for CJK examples for each rule along with the
examples in Western languages, since CJK cataloging has its own unique issues
that need to be taken into consideration.
o
Many members have
been regularly consulting with "The Descriptive Cataloging of East Asian
Material: CJK Examples of AACR2 and Library of Congress Rule
Interpretations" (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/CJKIntro2.html)
together with AACR2 and LCRI. However, since this supplement exists totally
separately from AACR2, it is not very convenient for the CJK catalogers. It
would be ideal to see this CJK cataloging supplement incorporated into RDA
somehow or, if JSC does not want to take this approach, perhaps to have it
updated and stand on its own but with convenient and easy navigation links to
RDA, such as via the creation of a “CJK examples” or “non-roman examples”
button in RDA for link and access
o
We need to know
what JSC’s decision will be regarding the inclusion
of CJK and other non-roman-language examples, so we can take action accordingly
to ensure that CJK catalogers apply RDA effectively and efficiently in the near
future.
·
ALA-LC
Romanization Tables:
o
We have to apply
standard Romanization schemes for transcribing non-roman languages into
transliterated forms. It would be very convenient if the ALA-LC Romanization
Tables could be incorporated into RDA, especially its online format. Suggest
adding ALA-LC Romanization Tables in appendix or hyperlinked within RDA text
wherever it is relevant.
·
Feedback on other
changes made or to make from AACR to RDA:
o
I really like the
idea of discontinuing the use of Latin abbreviations (sic, et al…) as well as
discontinuing use of the shortest form and abbreviation as was required for use
in the card catalog environment
o
I like Adam
Schiff’s suggestion to replace “unknown [data]” with “[data] not given.” It is more explicit and accurate for
transcription
·
Unicode issue
o
Another related
concern which is not strictly a RDA matter (it is a MARBI concern) is the
expansion of non-roman writing systems available for use. The
presentation of RDA gives a perfect time to address this and such related
issues as a possible shift from MARC-8 to full Unicode. This has been discussed
in recent MARBI meetings but it seems to me that RDA gives the opportunity to
take full advantage of Unicode.
Comments regarding specific
rules:
|
Rules # |
Location
(within the Rule identified at left) | Draft
Text | Statement
of Problem |
Solution and Reason |
|
1.5. Language and script of
the description |
Bullet 1. … Optionally, if any of the elements listed
above cannot be recorded in the script used on the source from which it is
taken, record it in a transliterated form. Statement of problem: There is no provision for
recording the elements in transliterated form when they can be recorded in
the original nonroman script. |
Solution/Reason: Agree with
Mr. Morimoto in that this option should be expanded to allow additional
transcription in transliterated form (romanization). (see CC:AAM
comments on 1.5.) Many of our users, including
librarians themselves, often find it easier and more convenient to search
using romanization rather than original scripts in online environment. Using romanization helps store, sort, index,
and retrieve data in nonroman languages and scripts
in the library system along with data in roman languages and scripts.
Searching using romanization not only retrieves information written in
non-roman original language and script on a given topic or author/person, but
also retrieves information written in western languages. It is a major merit
and advantage for area studies librarians, researchers, and scholars. In addition, many undergraduate students,
if not graduate students, appreciate the presence of romanized
data in the catalogue when they are citing bibliographic information. As for efficient and reliable retrieval of
original script data, if our own local system is anything to go by, there is
a long way to go where normalizing, indexing, retrieving and sorting of such
data are concerned. See also 2.3.4.4 below. Moreover, to achieve RDA
objective of comprehensiveness stated in 5JSC/RDA/Objectives and Principles,
RDA must acknowledge and address the need for additional transcription in
transliterated form using standard romanization schemes for resources in
non-roman languages. These are principle-based issues. The ambiguity in AACR2
regarding transcribing data in both original language and in transliterated
form should not be continued and carried over into RDA. For the purpose of
effectively and efficiently providing information to our users, it must be
stated explicitly and articulately in RDA in the same place regarding
transcription. This is necessary so that area studies catalogers won’t need
to consult too many rules, rule interpretations, and rule interpretations of
rule interpretations, as we currently do in practice. See also 1.6.2. and 1.6.2.3. below. |
|
1.5. Language and script of
the description |
Bullet 4. When recording within a note a name or
title originally in nonroman scripts, use the
original script whenever possible rather than a romanization. Exception: Record a title or quotation incorporated
into notes in the language and script in which it appears on the source from
which it is taken. Statement of problem: Inconsistent and conflicting
instructions. While the provision
applies to “name” or “title” but not “quotation,” the exception applies to
“title” or “quotation” but not “name.”
The provision stipulates “whenever possible” while the exception does
not (implying that it is mandatory). |
Solution/Reason: Mr. Morimoto
has a neat solution! Delete Bullet 4
and exception. Add “Name, title,
quotation in note” to the list in Bullet 1.
(see CC:AAM comments on 1.5.) |
|
1.6.2 |
Bullet 2. Optionally, for early printed resources …
(and elsewhere in RDA) Statement of problem: “Early” not clearly defined,
here and elsewhere in RDA (e.g. in chapters 3 and 6). Pre-19th century for
Western-language printed resources? For Chinese printed
resources, it is generally accepted that books published through the reign of
Emperor Qianlong (i.e. before 1796) are considered
“rare” and should be catalogued using the Cataloging Guidelines for Creating
Chinese Rare Book Records in Machine-Readable Form published by RLG in
2000. Many cataloguers also use the
Guidelines to catalogue books published before the Republican period (i.e.
before 1912), which are mostly woodblock printed books bound in stitched
volumes, different from modern typeset books, and therefore considered
“early.” A footnote: Prior to its publication, the Guidelines
had been submitted to CC:DA as a step in the process
of having it accepted as a standard and had received a favorable report in
return. |
Solution/Reason: Please
define “early” in the glossary or wherever appropriate. We would also like to have
the option of using the Guidelines to catalogue Chinese early printed
resources. |
|
1.6.2.3. Oriental numerals |
Main text: “… substitute Western-style arabic
numerals for numerals in the vernacular” Statement of problem: In the IFLA distributed
"Statement of International Cataloging Principles" the phrase
"language and script" appears many times. Nowhere is the
misleading and loaded word "vernacular" used. http://www.ddb.de/news/ifla_conf_papers.htm Webster's 9th New Collegiate
Dictionary has this definition for vernacular: 1a: using a language or
dialect native to a region or country rather than a literary, cultural, or
foreign language. b. of, relating to, or being a
nonstandard or substandard language or dialect of a place, region, or
country. When one uses
"vernacular" to describe the Chinese or Japanese or Korean script,
one agrees that CJK are nonstandard or substandard languages, and they are
neither literary nor cultural. Moreover, most properly
"vernacular" refers to spoken language. While there are cases where
the written form represents spoken language this is frequently not the case |
Solution/Suggest to change: “…substitute Western-style arabic numerals for numerals in the original language or
script.” Reason: To eliminate the term "vernacular" when
referring to data in non-roman alphabets and character sets. To be consistent
within the RDA and the IFLA Statement of
International Cataloging Principles |
|
1.6.2.3. |
Using word “oriental” Statement of Problem: "Oriental" is
another term one may not want to use. CC:AAM studied the term
“oriental” around 2001-2002 per CC:DA request, because a CC:DA Task Force
“has received several comments indicating that the term ‘oriental’ is
offensive and should not be used in AACR.” Although CC:AAM conducted a
thorough investigation into this issue, it was suggested that it be set aside
because the general consensus is that it is not offensive as long as it is
not used to address a group of people and it is acceptable to |
Solution/Suggest to remove or replace word “oriental” with “East
Asian and other numerals” if this is an issue mainly with East Asian
community. |
|
1.6.2. 1.6.2.3. |
Main text Statement of the problems: RDA 1.6.2. provides general instructions on how to transcribe
numerals and numbers in titles and statement of responsibility. However, this provision did not address how
to transcribe Oriental numerals in transliteration in the bibliographic
description. Although 1.6.2.3
(formerly AACR2 C.5) specifically deals with Oriental numerals, the provision
neither adequately resolved the various issues transcribing Oriental numerals
in cataloging, nor provided clear instructions with examples illustrating how
to apply the rule Due to the fact that
Oriental numerals are uniquely different from roman numerals and Arabic
numerals, and that bibliographic description for Far Eastern resources
involves transcribing data in one of the three ways – original language or
script with its corresponding transliteration (romanization), original
language or script only, or transliteration only, it may be insufficient to
lump the issues surrounding Oriental numerals under the general provision,
RDA 1.6.2. Since the LCRI will cease
after RDA replaces AACR2, RDA will be the primary cataloging code for years
to come. Therefore, it is very
important that RDA thoroughly covers Oriental numerals in greater depth and
detail under the provision 1.6.2.3. It
is also necessary to include examples to illustrate applications of the rule
and minimize ambiguity and potential confusion. RDA 1.6.2. Numerals and
numbers expressed as words, and RDA 1.6.2.3 Oriental numerals, lack clarity
and specificity when dealing with transcription in transliterated form. The inadequacy of the rules is
principle-based, not case-based. The
transcription of Oriental numerals in cataloging Far Eastern resources has
been source of ongoing confusion due to the ambiguity in the AACR2 C.5. The frustration experienced by many
catalogers is that when a rule is unclear, it is up to interpretation. When people apply the rule based on
individual interpretations, widespread inconsistency arises in bibliographic
databases such as OCLC and libraries’ online catalogs. Such inconsistencies often compromise
searching and retrieval in the databases.
Moreover, when a rule lacks illustrating examples, it is very
difficult for people to comprehend what the rule is really trying to
say. RDA has provided opportunities to
resolve the existing problems.
Nonetheless, the provisions RDA 1.6.2 and 1.6.2.3. need
extensive revision and enhancement to ensure their application in cataloging
practice. For more information, please
read: Ohta, Beatrice Chang, and Daphne Hsu-Kuang
Wang. "Transcribing oriental numerals in cataloging
: rules, confusion, and consistency." _Committee on East
Asian Libraries bulletin_104 (Oct. 1994) |
Solution/Suggest to Proposed revision: See also proposed addition
2.3.4.5. Option 1 (current
practice of LCRI C.5.C) Proposed revision for RDA 1.6.2.3: Oriental numerals (or reconstruct 1.6.2. may
need in order to incorporate the revised proposal) (The guidelines on transcribing Oriental
numerals established in the AACR2 C.5 and in the Library of Congress Rule
Interpretations C.5C have been incorporated in the following suggestions.) Oriental numerals are
expressed either in word-form or true number in original script that
designate dates and events, denote quantity, order and sequence, or express
nonnumeric concepts. Since
bibliographic description for Far Eastern language materials may involve
transcribing data in both original script and transliteration, in original
script only, or in transliteration only, there is an important distinction
between transcribing Oriental numerals in original script and in
transliteration. The representations
of Oriental numerals in original script and in transliteration are not to be
confused with each other, and specific guidelines are provided as follows.
Record variant transliteration following the instruction on variant
transliteration of the title proper (see proposed 2.3.4.5) 1. Transcribing Oriental numerals in titles and
statements of responsibility In bibliographic
description, always transcribe Oriental numerals in titles and statements of
responsibilities in the exact form in which they appear on the source of
information, as instructed in 1.6.2. In transliteration,
generally romanize Oriental numerals in
word-form. Transcribe Oriental
numerals in Arabic numbers only when such numerals are true numbers,
designate dates, or denote quantity, order and sequence. Original script: 一九四七台灣二二八革命 Transliteration: 1947 Original script: 一九六八年 Transliteration: 1968-yŏn Original script: 二•二六事件 Transliteration: Niniroku Jiken Original script: 3.1 運動 Transliteration: 3.1 Undong Original script: 三一運動 Transliteration: Samil Undong Original script: 삼일운동 Transliteration: Samil Undong Original script: 一千零一夜 Transliteration: Yi qian ling yi ye Original script: 一千〇一夜 Transliteration: Yi qian ling yi ye Original script: 三十年代의모더니즘 Transliteration: Samsimnyondae
ui modŏnijum Original script: 三〇年代イギリス外交戦略 Transliteration: 30-nendai Igirisu
gaikō senryaku Original script: 廿卅年代新詩論集 Transliteration: Nian sa nian dai
xin shi lun ji Original script: 新大成醫方 : 十卷 Transliteration: Xin da cheng yi
fang : shi juan Original script: 東都事略 : 一三〇卷 Transliteration: Dong du shi lue : 130 juan Original script: 一〇一册の図書館 Transliteration: 101-satsu no toshokan Original script: 一五〇年目の福沢諭吉 Transliteration: 150-nenme no Fukuzawa
Yukichi Original script: 二〇〇〇年前后的世界 Transliteration: 2000 nian qian hou de shi jie Original script: 一九八九水墨畫創新展 Transliteration: 1989 shui
mo hua chuang xin zhan Original script: 民國二十一年中國勞動年鑑 Transliteration: Minguo 21 nian Zhongguo lao dong nian jian Original script: 九三年 Transliteration: Jiu san nian Not: 93 nian (which
could mean 93 years) Original script: 90年代的第三世界 Transliteration: 90 nian dai de di san shi jie Original script: 二十世紀藝術精神 Transliteration: Er shi shi ji yi
shu jing shen Original script: 二〇世紀の政治理論 Transliteration: 20-seiki no seiji
riron Original script: 20世紀的20天 Transliteration: 20 shi ji de
20 tian Exception:
When the date is a principal element of
a title proper in Japanese, romanize it in
word-form with its particular reading. Original script: 八月二日, 天まで焼けた Transliteration: Hachigatsu futsuka, ten made yaketa 2. Oriental ordinal numbers In transliteration of
titles, corporate and conference names, transcribe Oriental ordinal numbers
denoting specific order and sequence in Arabic numbers. Original script: 第八屆全國油畫展畫集 Transliteration: Di 8 jie quan guo
you hua zhan hua ji Original script: 西遊記考證 : 胡適文存第二集第四卷 Transliteration: Xi you zhi kao zheng : Hu Shi wen
cun di 2 ji di 4 juan. Original script: 中華民國第三次教育圖表 : 民國四年 Transliteration: Zhonghua Minguo di 3 ci
jiao yu tu biao : Minguo
4 nian Original script: 세번째 Transliteration: Sebontchae Original script: 中国第二历史档案馆 Transliteration: Zhongguo di 2 li shi dang an guan Original script: 第一机械工业部 Transliteration: Di 1 ji xie gong ye bu 3. Oriental ordinal numbers used in nonnumeric
contexts When Oriental ordinal
numbers are used for differentiation and in nonnumeric contexts rather than
denoting order or sequence, romanize such numbers
as words in transliteration. Original script: 第三世界論 Transliteration: Chesam segyeron Original script: 제3 세계론 Transliteration: Che-3 segyeron Original script: 第二次世界大战 Transliteration: Di er ci shi jie
da zhan Original script: 第五代导演 Transliteration: Di wu dai dao
yan Original script: 第二의運命 Transliteration: Chei ui unmyong Original script: 第一生命八十五年史 Transliteration: Daiichi Seimei
hachijūgonenshi Original script: 第一生命保険相互会社 Transliteration: Daiichi Seimei
Hoken Sogo Kaisha 4. Using Arabic numerals in both transcription and
transliteration Transcribe Oriental numerals
as Arabic numerals in both transcription and transliteration only in the
following areas of the bibliographic description, as instructed in
1.6.2. Edition Statement Statement relating to a named
revision of an edition Numeric and/or alphabetic
designation Chronological designation Date
of publication, distribution, etc. Series numbering NOTE: When transcribing series titles in original
script, do not change Oriental numerals appearing in the titles to Arabic
numbers. Such Oriental numerals are
part of the series titles, not the series numbering. In transliteration, the Oriental numerals
in series titles may be transcribed into Arabic numerals when the numerals
denote order or sequence. Series in original script: 近代中國史料叢刊三編 Not: 近代中國史料叢刊3編 Transliteration: Jin dai
Zhongguo shi liao cong Series in original script: 新編中國名人年譜集成. 第二十輯 Not: 新編中國名人年譜集成. 第20輯 Transliteration: Xin bian Zhongguo ming ren nian
pu ji cheng.
Di 20 ji Series in original script: 新編諸子集成. 第一輯 Not: 新編諸子集成. 第1輯 Transliteration: Xin bian zhu zi
ji cheng. Di 1 ji Reason: We all recognize one
fact--there is widespread confusion and inconsistency surrounding Oriental
numerals. There are multiple resources such as AACR2 C.5, LCRI, and the
Descriptive cataloging of East Asian material: CJK examples of AACR2 and
Library of Congress rule interpretations, all of which are intended to deal
with the same issue in some way: Oriental numerals. In practice, I
cannot imagine who is willing to go through the multiple resources to agonize
over the examples in various places to deal with one single cataloging
problem. This is simply time-consuming and inefficient. Because
the rules were never clear in the first place, the rules need interpretations
(LCRI), and the interpretations in turn need interpretations again ...
Why can't the rules give people one-stop shopping instructions with clear
examples explaining how to apply them? Please also consult LCRI
C.5. and CJK examples (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/CJKAppC.pdf) Option 2 (proposal pending consensus response from
entire CEAL community; also may need to investigate via CC:AAM concerning
other non-roman area studies communities) Add within 1.6.2. first bullet: “series title” within parentheses. And the
text should read: When transcribing titles (title proper, parallel title,
other title information, variant title, series title, etc.) and … Add after 1.6.2. first bullet: “optionally, transcribe numerals and numbers
expressed as words in spelled-out transliterated form following standard
Romanization scheme. If transliteration of numerals and numbers differ from
common idiomatic practice, or if it is thought that some users of the catalog
might reasonably expect that was the form in the source, record transliterate
form by substituting an Arabic numeral for the spelled-out form as mandatory
following the instruction on variant transliteration of the title proper (see
proposed 2.3.4.5) Source: 一九八一年 統計資料 Title in original
script: 一九八一年 統計資料 Title in transliterated form: Yi jiu ba
yi nian tong ji zi liao
Variant
transliterated form: 1981 nian tong ji zi liao
[mandatory field for common idiomatic practice following proposed 2.3.4.5.] Source: 臺灣第一銀行史 Title
in original script: 臺灣第一銀行史 Title
in transliterated form: Variant
transliterated form: If 1.6.2. drops the phrase
“expressed as words” (see CC:AAM comments on 1.6.2.) the optional rule of
transliteration should split into: if numerals and numbers are
expressed as words, transliterate them in their “spelled-out” form [give examples listed above] if numerals and numbers are
expressed as Arabic numerals, record them in Arabic as they appear on the
source of information Source: 1981年 統計資料 Title in original
script: 1981年 統計資料 Title in transliterated form: 1981 nian tong ji zi liao
Variant
transliterated form: Yi jiu ba
yi nian tong ji zi liao (Please note: the examples
given here are simply for illustration, since one of them is probably a
serial from which “1981 nian” would be omitted) Also we propose to have
access point/name authority in Part III follow the above-proposed rules, and
make necessary cross-references for other variant forms in numerals Reason: ·
Simplified and
less confused approach over option 1 ·
Easy to be
uniformly followed and ensure consistent and effective practice ·
Easy to
incorporate into RDA without significant structure change ·
Flexible and
efficient for machine transliteration ·
Ability to retrievefuture records following this proposal would be
ensured because of variant recording requirements in the proposal ·
Would not lose
added access to alternative transliteration that represents common idiomatic
practice if in conjunction with proposed 2.3.4.5 ·
Users’
perspective: The philosophy of RDA is, "to simplify and make
sense." The new spirit of RDA is putting "user" and
"cataloger" on the equal basis. If users do not use the way as we
catalog, we're wasting our time, and we fail our mission to serve them Repercussion and
ramification: ·
Dramatic change
from current practice, total reversal
in recording of data elements directly affecting retrieval, as they
largely relate to titles. ·
Questioning
about ability to retrieve legacy records following LCRI C.5.C instructions ·
Would we convert
legacy records retrospectively? If so, could managers among CEAL members
secure additional funds for manual or automated changes? ·
If legacy
records could not be systematically changed, would information literacy
personnel among CEAL members be prepared to re-train their users regarding
Romanization of numerals? ·
What will be
future RDA instruction on transliterating access points regarding corporate
body when it involves Oriental numerals and numbers Overall,
CEAL as a community needs to investigate the potential impact of this
approach. Due to time constraints, we can only make this proposal pending the
consensus we need to get from our community. We also suggest JSC also needs to decide
whether to enforce consistent practice among description and access in
transliterated form concerning Oriental numerals and geographic names, and
the repercussions of this |
|
1.6.8. 2.3.8.4. …. 2..3.1.7. |
Statement of problem: The following two guidelines
providing conflicting instructions for inaccuracies: 1.6.8. … transcribe an
inaccuracy or a misspelled word as it appears on the source, except where
instructed otherwise … make
a note correcting the inaccuracy if it is considered to be important. 2.3.8.4. …. Optionally, in
lieu of making a note provide an access point giving the correct form of the
title. 2..3.1.7. Exceptions Resource issued in
successive parts Correct obvious typographic
errors when transcribing the titles proper and record the titles as it
appears on the source of information in a note |
Solution/suggestion: transcribe an inaccuracy or a misspelled word as it
appears on the source and provide an access point giving the corrected form
of the title. This will apply to all formats Reason: In most cases, users
would not know the title is in error and will only search the correct form,
so it’s important to provide a correct access point. |
|
1.6. |
Transcription Statement of problem: This section did not address
how to deal with omits or unreadable characters/words that can occur in the
course of either manually transcribing data or automatic data capturing. |
Solution/suggest to add new rule 1.6.9. Use a symbol (such as a
blank box 口 or other symbol) to replace each omitted or
unreadable character/word |
|
2.1.1.1. Resource issued in
successive parts |
Bullet 1. ii), iv) … not sequentially numbered … Statement of problem: Meaning not clear. Some
people understand it to mean “numbered parts not issued in sequence” but
others do not. |
Solution/Reason: Please
clarify in RDA what “not sequentially numbered” means. |
|
2.3.1.7. Basic instructions
on recoding the title proper |
Serials “… omit this date, name, number, etc. and replace it
by the mark of omission…” Statement of problem: How about ... nian or ... nian du in Chinese? Should the "nian"
or "nian du"
keep it or omit? It’s not clear whether “nian” (year of …) or “ nian du” (annual) should
be considered as part of date for omission. In practice, we omit them all
together with date, otherwise, the title would not sort in a logical way with
this date designation in the middle of title |
Solution/suggest to add Chinese example in 2.3.1.7. b) to help
illustrate the rule Need to evaluate if the same
problem applies to other non-roman languages. |
|
2.3.2.1 Definition (Parallel
title) . |
First bullet: “A parallel title is the title proper
in another language or script.” Statement of problem: Are different forms of
Romanization treated as a parallel title? It’s not clear whether
different forms of Romanization of a title would be considered as “another
scripts” in the definition and treated as parallel titles as the example
illustrated |
Solution/Suggest to add/move from 4.4.0.1 the definition on language
and script in 1.5. And supply CJK example in
2.3.2.3. to help illustrate the rule |
|
2.3.4.4. Translations or transliterations of the
titles proper |
Main text: “Record a translation or transliterated
form of the title proper created by the agency preparing the description as a
variant title following the basic instructions on recording titles. (see
2.3.0) Statement of problem: See 1.5. Bullet 1. Option
above. If the 1.5 option is extended
to allowing additional transcription in romanization
of the title proper, this provision here for recording a transliterated form
of the title proper as a variant title would be a conflict. |
Solution/Reason: If the
suggested 1.5 option extension is approved, delete “or transliterations” and
“or transliterated form” from 2.3.4.4. |
|
2.3.4.4. |
Main text Statement of problem: See 1.5. Bullet 1. Option
above. If the 1.5 option is extended
to allowing additional transcription in romanization
of the title proper, there is a need to address variant transliteration of
title proper. In such a case, translations and transliterations should be
separately instructed. |
Solution/suggest revision in conjunction with 1.6.2. and 1.6.2.3. Delete “or transliterations”
and “or transliterated form” from 2.3.4.4. The rule should read: 2.3.4.4. Translations of the
title proper Record a translation of the
title proper created by the agency preparing the description as a variant
title following the basic instructions on recording titles (see 2.3.0.) Add: 2.3.4.5. Variant
transliterations of the title proper (optional) Record an alternative
transliterated form of the title proper as follow: a) Variant transliteration
of Oriental numerals and numbers other than instructed in 1.6.2. (Oriental
need to be changed accordingly if above 1.6.2.3 on word “Oriental” approved) Option 1 (current practice) Record an alternative
transliterated form of the title proper when oriental numerals and numbers in
the title proper can be transliterated differently from proposed 1.6.2.3
(option 1) Option 2 (proposal pending
on consensus response from entire CEAL community) Record an alternative
transliterated form of the title proper when Oriental numerals and numbers in
the title proper can be transliterated differently from 1.6.2. (add proposed revision,
Option 1 on 1.6.2.3. regarding title here accordingly) Exception: When title
contains Chinese numerals, which are part of idiomatic phrases or personal
names, they should not be recorded as a variant transliterated form. Original script (name): 八大山人 Transliteration: Badashanren Not: 8 da
shan ren Original script (idiomatic phrase) 二八佳人 Transliteration: Er ba jia
ren Not: 28 jia ren (note: “er ba jia ren”
is a Chinese idiomatic phrase, meaning a 16-year-old girl, rather than 28
women) Original script: 徳富一郎集 Transliteration: Tokutomi
lichiro shu Not: Tokutomi
L1ro shu (note: “lichiro’
is a Japanese given name) b) Variant transliteration
of other characters or symbols [examples given on different
pronunciations of a character and/or different transcription/transliteration
on a symbols within a title] Reason: see 1.6.2. |
|
2.3.5.4. Earlier and later
variations in the title proper |
c) Option. … if the changes have been numerous … (and elsewhere in RDA) Statement of problem: “Numerous” not clearly
defined, here and elsewhere in RDA (e.g. later in chapter 2 and in chapters
3-4). More than three times? |
Solution/Reason: Please
define “numerous” wherever appropriate |
|
2.5.0 2.5.1 |
Statement of problem: What are rationales behind
the two separate sections: 2.5.0. Edition
information and 2.5.1. Edition statement? Isn’t there a lot of redundancy
here in 2.5.0.1-3 and 2.5.1.1-3? I don’t see much difference except using
terms “information” vs. “statement.” |
Solution/Reason: Please clarify the distinction or re-structure and
simplify 2.5. |
|
2.5.0.2 2.5.1.2 |
2.5.0.2./2.5.1.2. [Recording edition
information/Edition statement] Sources of information Bullet 1. Take edition information/an edition
statement from the same source as the title proper … Bullet 2. If edition information/an edition statement
does not appear on the source from which the title
proper is taken, take it from another source within the resource itself. Statement of problem: Many East Asian publications
have variant edition statements formally presented in more than one location
(e.g. title page, title page verso, colophon, etc.) and all referring to the
same edition, not to named revisions of the edition. If only one or some, but not all, of these
statements are recorded by the cataloguer, it could be confusing as far as
identification is concerned. |
Solution/Reason: Take edition
information from all formally presented statements within the resource
itself. |
|
2.5.1. Edition Statement |
2.5.1.1.-2.5.1.2. Statement of problem: This section did not provide
guidelines and instructions on dealing with multiple unlinked/separated
edition statements. This is not a situation
unique to CJK materials, but occurs as well in the case of Western-language
materials. It came up in the Autocat discussion
under Subject: AACR2 and multiple edition statements in Sept. 2004 |
Solution/Suggest to Add: 2.5.1.1. Definition: a
bullet between current first and second that is similar to 2.3.0.1.: “More
than one edition statement may appear in the resource itself (e.g., on a
title page, title frame, etc.; on a cover, colophon, etc.; within
other preliminaries), on a jacket, sleeve, container, etc., or in material
accompanying the resource.” 2.5.1.2 A bullet between
current first and second: “If more than one edition statement appears
separately within the resource itself, take them in the order of their
prominence.” Suggest to also add: 2.5.1.8. additional edition
statement (note: It differentiates from parallel edition statement) Instruction on how to record
the additional edition statement, when to record as sequential and when to
record in a note. Please refer to ISBD (G)
2004 revision, section on edition area |
|
2.8.1.2. Recording place of
publication |
Examples 3-6. Christiania [ Statement of problem: Although we are not to
comment on examples, I feel compelled to do so since these four so clearly
contradict 2.8.0.3. Bullet 2 (If clarification of the place name as
transcribed is considered to be important, make a note (see 2.8.5) …) and
2.8.5.3 (Make notes on details relating to places of publication,
distribution, etc., not recorded in the place of publication, distribution,
etc., element, if they are considered to be important.). The clarifications of the place names are
presented in brackets in the place element instead of in notes. |
Solution/Reason: Either revise 2.8.0.3. Bullet 2 and 2.8.5.3, or delete these four
examples from 2.8.1.2. |
|
2.8.4.1. |
Definition Statement of problem: A typo is underlined: A place of production is a place associated
with the production, fabrication, construction, etc., of a resource. |
Solution/Reason: Please make correction. |
|
2.8.4.2. Recording place of
production |
If the resource is in an unpublished form (e.g., a
manuscript, a painting, a sculpture), record the
place of production, following the basic instructions on recording place of
publication, distribution, etc. (see 2.8.0). Statement of problem: It causes confusion. Are we to record the place of production
for a resource in an unpublished form, but not the name of producer? There is no provision for recording the
name of producer (2.7-2.7.4.4). More confusion about whether
we are to record the date of production for a resource in an unpublished
form. 2.9.1.3. Last bullet states: If
the resource is in an unpublished form (e.g., a manuscript, a painting, a
sculpture), record nothing in the date of publication element. See also 2.9.5. I do not think there is any provision
either in 2.9.5-2.9.5.3. Date of production. |
Solution/Reason: Please
clarify |
|
2.8.4.2 |
Main text Statement of problem: There is no provision for
recording place of production not identified in the resource which is
inconsistent with Rule 2.8.1. |
Solution/Reason: Please
provide a rule similar to 2.8.1.3. Place of publication not identified in the
resource. |
|
2.9.1.3. Date of publication
not identified in the resource |
Second bullet, “… supply an approximate date of
publication, enclosed in square brackets.” Statement of problem: Instructions on recording
supplied data have not been consistent. Sometime it is optional (e.g.
2.9.0.2.) sometime it is not (2.9.1.3.) What impact would rule 2.9.1.3. have on automatic
harvesting data and batch processing? |
Solution/suggest to make it optional or add phrase “when applicable” |