Comments on LC Proposal on RDA Part I
Internationalization
CEAL RDA Review Subcommittee of the
Committee on Technical Processing
Submitted Mar. 7, 2006
General comments:
·
The LC proposal is
certainly simple (as stated by Jennifer Bowen) and very flexible (intentionally
so, see I. A. 1.6.2. Second note) with regard to “internationalization.” It
addresses the concerns raised in the CEAL RDA comments regarding
o
Transcription of
non-roman languages and scripts and their transliterated forms, and
transcribing numbers expressed as words and numerals.
o
Replacement of the
terms “oriental” and “vernacular.”
o
Supplementing of
missing data elements.
·
Support the
proposal suggesting addition of 1.6.2.6 Calendar and revision of 2.6.2.3 and
2.9.0.3 in I. E.
·
Support the proposal
suggesting using “transliteration” in place of “romanization” (see II. 3rd
paragraph)
·
Concerns with
possible inconsistent practice in applying these options, suggest LC issues RIs/Catalog Decision and set direction in this regard.
Concern
is that the LC proposal is so flexible, with all its options, that bib records
for the same manifestation of a specific expression of a specific work might,
nevertheless, end up varying quite a bit, which, in turn, would pose problems
for easy and comprehensive retrieval. Is LC going to issue RIs in the future specifying what options it will
take? That will help the CEAL community to reach an understanding of LC's position on various rules.
·
Concerns with lack
of CJK and other non-roman language examples.
We
need numerous CJK examples to illustrate the rules, the RIs,
and variant forms of access points to ensure better understanding and
consistent application of RDA among area studies catalogers as well as the general
cataloging community.
This
is one of three major concerns raised in the CEAL RDA comments that still need
to be addressed. We understand that this proposal is not intended to address
it, but we hope to hear from JSC soon on what being decided 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.
Specific comments
|
Rule # |
Proposal |
Suggested change |
|
I. A. 1.6.2. |
A. Proposed revision of 1.6.2 1.6.2. Ø When transcribing any title Ø Follow the guidelines in 1.6.2.1-1.6.2.6 Numeric and/or
alphabetic designation Chronological
designation Date of
publication, distribution, etc. Numbering within
series ◊ Optionally, add or
substitute numerals in the script preferred by the agency preparing the
description. ◊ Optionally,
for early printed resources [remainder of option as given] [example] Statement of Problem: Language and wording in the
second bullet of options for early printed resources should be consistent
with main instruction of the second arrow and reflect changes accordingly. |
Suggested change for the second bullet: ◊ Optionally,
for early printed resources, recording [example] [note: Delete the first two
examples] |