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 ( and watching a webcast of Rick Anderson’s program “Always a river, sometimes a library” ( 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 San Antonio, rule 2.2 source of information was a major topic of discussion. Of the three options, more CC:DA members prefer to have the entire resource as source of information. I don’t know if there are more cons or pros, but I would like to ask JSC more questions before considering this approach:

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" ( 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 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 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.)



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. 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.


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

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
use the word in cataloging rules.  In addition, John Attig, chair of CC:DA Task Force said that the Joint Steering Committee decided not to pursue the issue for the same reason and CC:DA does not require any response from CC:AAM.  Some CC:AAM members expressed their concern that this issue might be brought up again in the future, which would require another
investigation.  The Committee decided to archive the report as well as to send a copy to CC:DA for future reference


Solution/Suggest to remove or replace word “oriental” with “East Asian and other numerals” if this is an issue mainly with East Asian community.


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 (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 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 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 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


Option 1 (current practice of LCRI C.5.C)

Proposed revision for RDA 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


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 Taiwan er er ba ge ming

Original script: 一九

Transliteration: 1968-yŏn


Original script: 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

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: 3 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

Transliteration: Jin dai Zhongguo shi liao cong kan 3 bian


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. 20

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. 1

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 (



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


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]


Source: 臺灣第一銀行

Title in original script: 臺灣第一銀行

Title in transliterated form: Taiwan di yi yin hang shi

Variant transliterated form: Taiwan di 1 yin hang shi [common idiomatic practice]


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 統計資料

Title in original script: 1981 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



·          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

·          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 ALA turns to CC:AAM to investigate it among other area studies communities who would also be affected if this proposal were implemented. We need JSC instruction on how much time we would be given to finalize our decisions regarding these two proposals.


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. ….




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. …. 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.







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 or other symbol) to replace each omitted or unreadable character/word 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. Basic instructions on recoding the title proper




“… 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 b) to help illustrate the rule


Need to evaluate if the same problem applies to other non-roman languages. 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?

Example: Sheng wu ji kan = Jrl. of biology = Shengwu jikan = Shengwujikan


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 the definition on language and script in 1.5.


And supply CJK example in to help illustrate the rule 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

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


Delete “or transliterations” and “or transliterated form” from The rule should read: 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: 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 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 (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 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. 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




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 and 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. [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


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: Definition: a bullet between current first and second that is similar to “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.” 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: 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 Recording place of publication


Examples 3-6. Christiania [Oslo], Mpls [Minneapolis], Santiago [Chile], Paris [i.e. Bruxelles]


Statement of problem:

Although we are not to comment on examples, I feel compelled to do so since these four so clearly contradict Bullet 2 (If clarification of the place name as transcribed is considered to be important, make a note (see 2.8.5) …) and (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 Bullet 2 and, or delete these four examples from




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. 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-

More confusion about whether we are to record the date of production for a resource in an unpublished form. 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- Date of production.


Solution/Reason: Please clarify

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 Place of publication not identified in the resource. 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. sometime it is not ( What impact would rule have on automatic harvesting data and batch processing?

Solution/suggest to make it optional or add phrase “when applicable”