Questions: About the field 300 (physical description) of a serial reprint record.
I have some problems in cataloging a reprint of a monthly periodical, and wish to know how to enter the field 300 in successive entry cataloging. The reprint consists of 4 physical volumes, and a title change occured in the middle of the last volume. If I enter 4 volumes for the old title (v.1, no.1-v.2, no.10), and 1 volume for the new title (v.2, no.11-v.2, no.12), someone might think that the total number of volumes is five instead of four. If this cataloging is correct, I would like to add a note to the first and second title, but do not wish to confuse library patrons. I would appreciate your providing a few sample notes or better solutions
Answers:
First: The conclusions are correct. In a separate record for a reprint of a serial, "extent of item" in field 300 gives the number of *physical*, rather than bibliographic, volumes. This is true *exceptionally* for reprints and is the opposite of practice in most serial descriptions--see LC rule interpretations 12.5B2 and 12.0B1. The "extent of item" statements for the earlier and later titles in this case are, indeed, respectively, "4 v." and "1 v."
Those statements, individually or together, really do *not* represent a record of how many physical volumes in total are in your library collection--rather, they indicate how many correspond to the serial cataloged in each record. The meaning is more like: for this title, you must deal with 4 physical volumes; for this other title, you must deal with 1 physical volume--true in both cases.
How many actual volumes are on your shelves corresponds to item records, or whatever mechanism your local system uses for item-level information. That is not really the purpose of the physical description in a successive-entry cataloging record per AACR2 and LCRIs. Sometimesadding the numbers of volumes in 300 fields of successive records will give you the number of volumes on shelf; sometimes not.
Things are not different if we are recording numbers of bibliographic, rather than physical, volumes. Suppose we are cataloging an original periodical that comes out monthly. It keepsone title through v. 3, no. 2; and a new title begins with v. 3, no. 3. The new title continues only through v. 3, no. 10; and another new title starts with v. 3, no. 11 and ends with v. 5, no. 12, when the publication ceases finally. The descriptions will include the following:
Title one.
Vol. 1, no. 1-v. 3, no. 3.
3 v.
Title two.
Vol. 3, no. 4-v. 3, no. 10.
1 v.
Title three.
Vol. 3, no. 11-v. 5, no. 12.
3 v.
If adding "extent of item" numbers from 300 fields were valid, it would seem we have 7 bibliographic volumes here. But we do not--there are 5. The lesson: do not add those numbers; that is not what they are for.
Most serials catalogers would not bother to give a note in a situation like this one, where different successive serial records relate to the same volume (bibliographical or physical). They wouldnot find the case sufficiently unusual to be worth noting. So I will not tell people there is a note one *should* use in cases like this. One may give no note and be correct and with the majority.
But AACR2 says that we can make notes "on important details that are not included in the physical description area" (see 12.7B10). So you can make such a note if it is "important" to you. It would be a "general" note in field 500. Since notes of this type are not given often, I do not have many examples lying around and there are no "standard note" models you are expected to follow. You can write your own note in clear language of your choosing. One possible set of notes might be: "Vol. 2, no. 11 issued in same volume with v. 2, no. 12 of succeeding title" and "Vol. 2, no. 12 iss!
ued in same volume with v. 2, no. 11 of preceding title". In the case of reprints, where suchfacts are generally true of all examplars (i.e. not just the copy you have), these notes are true and permissible in bibliographic records.
You may, however, want to think about what problems this situation really causes and at what point it is most handy for people to find information to help them out. The trouble point for this case in many systems would concern circulation status information for the volume shared by successive records. Those systems require the item record for a volume to be linked to one and only one bibliographic record and location; so one record in our example could have information aboutthe status of the last volume in the set while the other could not. In that case, knowing about different titles combined in one volume can help users and librarians determine where to look to see whether a particular volume is checked out or not. Many serials catalogers have found it more user-friendly to give notes about such situations in *holdings* records for specific locations, rather than in the general bibliographic record. So, if the information is true about all instances of a reprint in !
general, it is permissible to give notes about titles combined in one volume in the bibliographic record. But think about whether that is the best solution and the best locationfor the real problems you are trying to address locally.
Carroll Davis
Serials Record Division, LC
cnda@loc.gov
A total of fourteen questions sent to LC by Hideyuki Morimoto. Answers by LC are in bold face and preceed Mr. Morimoto's questions.
QUESTION 1.
-- Hyphenation and word-division
Mr. Morimoto: Since this issue is not covered specifically by the romanization rules,
it seems to fall into the area of cataloger's judgment. Rather than spending a lot of
time agonizing over this, LC catalogers are strongly encouraged to make a decision and to
account for variations if an access point is involved. In this time of cataloging
simplification and strong reliance on cataloger's judgment and cooperative cataloging, my
sense is that creating another provision to handle what seems to be a rather rare
situation is probably not in the best interest of the cataloging community.
After consulting with the Japanese catalogers for the third or fourth time, LC has decided
to romanize the phrase in question as "Ura Sen-ke". Our justification is not based on a
single rule but understanding the underlying principal of the ALA/LC Romanization Tables
and making decision when a situation in hand is not covered by specific rule(s). The
Japanese Romanization Tables 4 Proper Names (a) instruct us to "Write proper names and
titles of books separately from modifiers or words modified by them." We think this
principal governs any situations involving "Proper names." Therefore, we decided to
separate Ura and Sen (family name). As for the word "ke", we agree with your observation
that "Japanese language catalog records seems to reflect rather stable practice of
hyphenation, etc." We hyphenate "ke" applying Romanization Tables 4 (b) and (c) although
this particular situation is not specifically addressed by these two rules.
>The following question raised at the 1998 Seminar held at D.C. is still
>unresolved. I brought this outstanding question to the Japanese break-out
>session; this was then made an assignment. I then submitted to LC's
>Japanese Cataloging Team a written response, which remains unaswered to
>date for over one year and a half; and the word-division inconsistency
>still persists with this Japanese phrase.
>
> Ura Sen-ke or Urasenke
>
>The text that I submitted to LC is reproduced below.
>
>Mr. Tsuchitani:
>
>Following my earlier message with regard to Sakurada Mongai/Sakurada
>mongai, I am submitting to you my assignment report on word division of
>Ura Sen-ke or Urasenke.
>
>As I mentioned in my original message sent to CPSO on 6 August 1996, the
>following was and still is (as of 1 May 1998) the situation.
>
> LCCN 95458908/AJ Ura Sen-ke
> LCCN 92118993/AJ Urasenke
>
>Somewhat related, although *NOT* of direct relevance to the romanization
>question of vernacular phrases, anglicized established headindgs were (as
>of 6 August 1996) and is (as of 1 May 1998) as follows.
>
> LCCN sh85069732 Ura Senke school
> LCCN n83182925 Ura Senke Konnichian
> LCCN n82218638 Urasenke Foundation of Kyoto
>
>With regard to romanization of the vernacular phrase consisting of three
>Chinese characters, irrespective of those anglicized forms for which
>completely different cataloging rules apply, it appears that the word
>division cannot be determined without (an) supplementary romanization
>rule(s) added to the current version of the ALA-LC Japanese romanization
>table.
>
>First, through application of CSB, no. 20, clause 5.4.A.-exception (4)
>
> Hyphenate such single characters as teki, gata, ryu, san, sei
> ha, kei hon, han, etc., which can be suffixed to any proper
> names.
>
>the last Chinese character "ke" would call for a preceding hyphen to
>result in "-ke". Although an argument may be made that "ke" can be
>suffixed only to family names and not to corporate body or other proper
>names, treatment of this character to mean family in romanization within
>Japanese-language catalog records seems to reflect rather stable practice
>of hyphenation, e.g., LCCN 95459535/AJ (Konoe-ke), 91197210/AJ (Konoe-ke),
>etc.
>
>Then, it does not seem that the ALA-LC romanization table for Japanese has
>any provision for treatment of personal/family names with modifiers
>differentiating families of the same name as part of the name analogous to
>the one for *geographic* names found in clause 5.4.C.b., which has "Write
>modifiers differentiating ..." for the case of *place* names.
>
>It does not appear, either, that this Ura Sen falls under the category of
>an abbreviated proper names that is covered by clause 5.4.D, since neither
>Ura nor Sen is a shorter form of anything else. There are several
>derivatives of the Sen family: Omote, Ura, etc. Ura is one of the
>modifying terms to denote its separate identity from other Sen family
>derivatives.
>
>This specific issue might be considered to fall under a category similar
>to the case of Daigo versus Godaigo (LCCN n80-40246: Godaigo, Emperor of
>Japan, 1288-1339) or of Shirakawa versus Goshirakawa (LCCN n82-56546:
>Goshirakawa, Emperor of Japan, 1127-1192). However, Sen-ke versus Ura
>Sen-ke/Urasen-ke is not exactly the same as Daigo versus Godaigo or
>Shirakawa versus Goshirakawa.
>
>It may thus be concluded at this time that (an) additional provision(s)
>in the ALA-LC romanization table for Japanese is/are needed to
>consistently handle the situation of family names with modifiers.
>Something analogous (but with due course modification) to clause 5.4.C.b.
>may be supplied under clause section 5.4. Without such supplementary
>romanization rule, this question of Ura Sen or Urasen may not be solved in
>a satisfactory fashion.
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 11:42:15 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Hideyuki Morimoto
>To: cpso@mail.loc.gov
>Subject: Romanization for Ura Sen-ke or Urasenke (fwd)
>
>The following enquiry regarding romanization for Ura Sen-ke or Urasenke
>that I sent to CPSO close to two months ago remains unanswered to date.
>Any information that you could immediately provide me on this topic would
>be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much.
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 12:08:11 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Hideyuki Morimoto
>To: cpso@mail.loc.gov
>Subject: Romanization for Ura Sen-ke or Urasenke
>
>This is to request a guidance as to proper romanization of a Japanese
>phrase "Ura Sen-ke", "Urasenke", or "Ura Senke" in catalog records and a
>pointer to a proper rule leading to the solution within the
>currently-valid ALA/LC romanization tables. This Japanese phrase is
>romanized as:
>
> Ura Sen-ke in LC bibliographic record, LCCN 95458908/AJ
>
> but as:
>
> Urasenke in LC bibliographic record, LCCN 92118993/AJ
>
>Another variant, although within a different context, is found:
>
> Japanese tea ceremony $x Ura Senke school (est. heading)
> in LC subject authority record LCCN sh85-69732
>
>while related name authority records have:
>
> Ura Senke Konnichian (est. heading for Ura Senke/Urasenke Foundation)
> in LC name authority record LCCN n83-182925
>
> Urasenke Foundation of Kyoto (est. heading)
> in LC name authority record LCCN n82-218638
>
>Any instruction you could provide as to the proper romanization of this
>phrase in bibliographic records would thus be greatly appreciated. Thank
>you very much.
>
>Other outstanding questions that I asked of various offices of LC follow.
QUESTION 2.
-- Utaandon or Uta andon
Mr. Morimoto: We feel that ALA/LC Romanization Tables 2 (a) 2: "Write separately a kun
single character word modifying a compound." applies in this case. Thus, it will be
romanized as Uta andon (two words).
>This is to enquire LC's current policy in proper romanization of a
>Japanese phrase Utaandon or Uta andon (title of a fiction written in
>Japanese by Kyoka Izumi). It appears that some relevant LC bibliographic
>records romanize this title as one word, Utaandon, while other records
>treat it as two words, Uta andon, for the same
>vernacular phrase.
>
> Utaandon entered in LCCN:
>
> 91225694
> 89179395/AJ
>
> Uta andon entered in LCCN:
>
> 91802555/AJ
> 91801867/AJ
> 87140206/AJ
> 84149622/AJ/r85
>
>Evidently, application of CSB, no. 20, spring 1983, Japanese romanization,
>clause 5.2.A.b, would result in Uta andon, since it instructs:
>
> Write separately a _kun_ single character word modifying a compound.
>
>while application of clause 5.2.A.a, which dictates:
>
> Write compound nouns as single words.
>
>would result, in turn, in Utaandon.
>
>Your claraification of LC's current rule interpretation for proper
>romanization of this Japanese expression Uta andon or Utaandon would thus be
>greatly appreciated.
>
>Thank you very much.
QUESTION 3.
-- Romanization of 260 field for Chinese-language materials published in Japan
Mr. Morimoto: LC recommends using the Japanese reading (or romanization) for the 260
field if the item being cataloged is of Japanese origin.
>It is about Chinese-language publications put out in Tokyo (or Kyoto, or anywhere in
>Chinese-*SCRIPT* using places outside the Chinese-*LANGUAGE* region).
>
>
>Somewhat mixed practice has been observed among LC bibliographic records in this respect.
>
>For instance, the following two LC bibliographic records for Chinese-language publications
>from Tokyo have 260 data read in Japanese way.
>
> 91-168271/ACN Chin y"u yen chiu / $c Hou Ching-i ...
> T_oky_o : $b T_oky_o Gaikokugo Daigaku Ajia Afurika
> Gengo Bunka Kenky_ujo ...
> 93-210881/ACN Jih y"u tu yin su ch'a sou ts'e = $b Kanji yomikata
> jiten / $c Hsieh Tuan-ming chu.
> T_oky_o : $b Sanseid_o ...
>
>Then, the following two LC bibliographic records for yet other
>Chinese-language publications from Tokyo enter 260-$b data in Chinese
>reading.
>
> 94-451114/ACN Tang chin Jih-pen hua : $b tsou hsiang ch'uan t'ung y"u ko
> hsin ti t'ung i : 1992 nien 9 y"ueh 16 jih--10 y"ueh 11
> jih, Pei-ching shih, Chung kuo mei shu kuan / $c chu pan
> Chung-kuo tui wai i shu chan lan kung ssu, Jih-pen kuo
> chi chiao liu chi chin.
> [Tokyo] : $b Kuo chi chiao liu chi chi
> 88-203080/ACN Hsien tai Jih Han ta tz'u tien / $c chu pien Sung
> Wen-ch'un ; fu chu pien Chiang Wan-ch'eng.
> Pei-ching : $b Chung-kuo shang wu yin shu kuan ;
> $a [Tokyo] : $b Jih-pen hsiao hs"ueh kuan
>
>Now, the new Chinese romanization guidelines that you distributed over the
>weekend instruct:
>
> Romanize words of non-Chinese origin systematically in all
> cases, even though normalized (non-systematic) romanizations
> are known or the word comes from a Latin script language.
> ...
> Dongjing not Tokyo
>
>Then, when applied, this would result in, in the future:
>
> for the first record above: 91-168271/ACN
> Tongjing : $b Tongjing ...
>
>Here, a question arises, for the publisher statement, after 260-$b
>Tongjing, what should we do? "Gaikokugo", "Daigaku", "Gengo", "Bunka", and
>"Kenky_ujo" could be romanized in pinyin, if necessary, since these are
>written in Chinese characters. However, what would happen to "Ajia" and
>"Afurika"? These are written in katakana, and not in Chinese characters.
>Are there guidelines for romanizing katakana in pinyin? Or, should we mix
>Chinese reading and Japanese one together in the publisher statement under
>260-$b with the Chinese character portion read in Chinese and romanized
>in pinyin and the katakana portion appearing in the middle of the Chinese
>character string read in Japanese and romanized in modified Hepburn?
>
>Any guidance that you could provide me in this respect would be greatly
>appreciated. Thank you very much for all your cooperation.
>
QUESTION 4.
-- Seriality decision for multipart items
Mr. Morimoto: We do not feel that Question 4 is related to LC's seriality decision.
It is just the Japanese teams' practice to catalog some of the borderline publications
(mono or serial) as monographs until the Serial Division has time to recatalog them as
serials. We do this because LC's Serial Record Division has only one cataloger and serial
cataloging is not as speedy as monograph cataloging. As a practical matter, this helps
the Acquisition and Selection Officers in deciding whether to purchase/keep the succeeding
volumes and also let the end users know what we have in the Japanese collection. This
problem happened because mono and serials are cataloged in two different directorates, one
cataloging in RLIN and the other cataloging in OCLC.When these items were re-cataloged as
serials someone failed to delete mono records from RLIN.
>This is to enquire about LC's current seriality decision with regard to a multi-part publication:
>
> Enerugi kenkyu kaihatsu no kokusai kyoryoku. -- [Tokyo] : Kagaku
> Gijutsucho,
>
>Active LC bibliographic record 91649180/AJ reflects the following serial treatment for
>this publication:
>
> 010 91-649180/AJ
> 012 3 $i 9407
> 040 DLC $c DLC $d NST $d DLC
> 050 00 TJ163.13 $b .E537 $u
> 245 00 Enerug_i kenky_u kaihatsu no kokusai ky_oryoku.
> 260 [T_oky_o] : $b Kagaku Gijutsuch_o,
> 300 v. : $b ill. ; $c 25-30 cm.
> 490 1 Sank_o shiry_o
> 500 Description based on: Sh_owa 59-nen i.e. 1984; title from cover.
>
>with a "description based on" note for the 1984 issue.
>
>However, at the same time, another active LC bibliographic record
>86117413/AJ for the next issue (i.e., 1985 issue) of this publication
>reflects a book treament of the same publication.
>
> 010 86-117413/AJ
> 040 DLC $c DLC
> 050 0 HD9502.A2 $b E559 1985
> 245 00 Enerug_i kenky_u kaihatsu no kokusai ky_oryoku.
> 260 [Tokyo] : $b Kagaku Gijutsuch_o, $c Sh_owa 60 [1985]
> 300 ii, 111 p. : $b ill. ; $c 25 cm.
> 490 1 Sank_o shiry_o
> 500 Cover title.
>
>Your information as to LC's current seriality decision of this title would thus be greatly
>appreciated.
QUESTION 5.
-- Word division for "keizaigakushi"
Mr. Morimoto: According to the ALA-LC Romanization Tables, the basic principle in the
Word division rule no. 1 states that for "Sino-Japanese (on) compounds: A compound means
a word consisting of two or more Chinese characters (kanji), or of Chinese characters and
kana, or of kana alone, whether established by dictionary usage or not." The rules
following Rule no. 1 are exceptions dealing with specific situations. Our understanding
of these rules is try to apply rule no. 1 first (try to divide a phrase in the smallest
compound or binary compound) and if that does not make any sense go to the other rules
that applies to the situation on hand. Based on our practice, we will romanize the phrase
as "keizai gakushi." You will not find "gakushi" in any dictionary but Rule 1 says
"Whether established by dictionary usage or not." "Keizaigaku" is a trinary compound
and if rule l(b) 1 is applied it will be romanized as one work (keizaigakushi). According
to the the old romanization tables, this phrase would have been written as one word.
>This is to enquire LC's current policy in proper romanization of a Japanese phrase
>keizaigakushi or keizai gakushi (history of economics). It appears that some relevant
>LC bibliographic records romanize this phrase as one word, keizaigakushi, while other
>LC records treat it as two words, keizai gakushi, for the same vernacular phrase.
>
> keizaigakushi entered in LCCN:
>
> 96471347
> 94463670
> 94107030
> 82227338
> 93173478
>
> keizai gakushi entered in LCCN:
>
> 98462390
> 93848045
> 93163249
> 92251574
> 92136186
>
>Evidently, application of CSB, no. 20, spring 1983, Japanese romanization, clause 5.1.B.b,
>would result in keizaigakushi, since it instructs:
>
> Write trinary and derived compounds as single words as long
> as they contain no more than one binary or trinary compound.
>
>while application of clause 5.1.A, which dictates:
>
> Write binary compounds as single words.
>
>would result, in turn, in keizai gakushi.
>
>Your claraification of LC's current rule interpretation for proper romanization of this
>Japanese expression keizaigakushi or keizai gakushi (history of economics) would thus
>be greatly appreciated.
QUESTION 6.
-- Duplicate authority records
Mr. Morimoto: We've kept n42-14673, deleted nr99-18364, and added $z to the one and
only n42-14673.
>LC series authority record nr99-18364 has the following:
>
> 010 nr99-18364
> 040 DLC-R $b eng $c DLC-R
> 130 0 Kosaido books
> 644 f $5 DLC
> 645 t $5 DPCC $5 DLC
> 646 s $5 DLC
> 670 Sum_o no wakaru hon, c1975: $b t.p. (Kosaido books)
>
>Then, another LC series authority record n42-14673$zn83-728337 has the following:
>
> 010 n42-14673 $z n83-728337
> 040 DLC $c DLC $d DLC
> 130 0 Kosaido books.
> 643 Tokyo $b K_osaid_o Shuppan
> 644 f $5 DLC
> 645 n $5 DLC
> 646 s $5 DLC
> 670 Eikawa, K_oki. Senkusha no hass_o. 1980.
>
>While nr99-18364 does not contain field 643 data, our investigation suggests that these
>two authority records are for the same series. Your further review of the situation would
>thus be greatly appreciated.
QUESTION 7.
-- Form of publishers' names
Mr. Morimoto: When we first started cataloging under AA2 rules, we gave the publisher's
name in the shortest form possible (Do Kenkyujo, etc.) However, when we started
cataloging Japanese books in RLIN in 1984 we began transcribing the publisher's name as it
appears in the prescribed sources of information. The reason may have been something to
do with records clustering in RLIN. You are correct in your observation that LC's Serial
Record Division still applies the above rule (AA1.4D4) and gives the publisher's, etc.
name in the shortest possible form. Serials are cataloged in OCLC and they do not have
"clustering" problems. When the former Japanese Section of the Shared Cataloging Division
decided to transcribe publisher statement in full, the Serial Record Division was informed
of our decision but that Division opted not to follow our practice. I think the
intention of this rule is to avoid re-typing the same information in 245. But, RLIN has
copy key and copy and paste function thus repeating publisher's name in 260 is not a
problem at all. Because this is not an access point, it is probably not that important to
have total consistency in how a publisher's name is transcribed.
>The following questions were raised at this year's (1999) Seminar within
>the Japanese Break-Out session, but no answer was given since the
>break-out session was without any representative from LC.
>
>The then Japanese Language Section within LC issued on 16 November 1984 an
>instruction with regard to non-application of rule 1.4D4 to Japanese-language
>publications. For instance:
>
> Title and statement of responsibility area Publication area
>
> Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenky_ujo Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenky_ujo
> Not D_o Kenky_ujo or D_osho
> T_oky_o Daigaku T_oky_o Daigaku
> Not D_o Daigaku or T_odai
>
>We understand that this is consistently practiced with Japanese-language
>"books" records by LC. However, LC's Japanese-language "serials" records
>contain many cases of publisher names abbreviated with "D_o". For instance,
>
> LCCN 93-659614/AJ/V
> Title: Kansai Z_osen Ky_okai shi
> Publisher: D_o Ky_okai
>
> LCCN sf98-81198/AJ/V
> Title: Keij_o Doboku Kenchikugy_o Ky_okai h_o
> Publisher: D_o Ky_okai
>
> LCCN 98-659568/AJ/V
> Title: T_oky_o Gakugei Daigaku kiy_o ...
> Publisher: D_o Daigaku
>
> LCCN 88-648275/AJ
> Statement of responsibility: Hy_ogo Ky_oiku Daigaku Gakk_o Ky_oiku ...
> Publisher: D_o Daigaku
>
> LCCN 85-648274/AJ
> Title: Toyama Daigaku K_ogakubu kiy_o
> Publisher: D_o Gakubu Kiy_o Iinkai
>
>Are Japanese-language serial title cataloging made exception to the
>provision for not applying rule 1.4D4 to Japanese-language publications?
QUESTION 8.
-- Place of publication
Mr. Morimoto: This is a similar situation as Question 7. Mono. catalogers decided to
do it one way and the Serial Record Division decided to do it their way.
>For entering the place of publication in MARC 21 field 260 subfield a, when the piece
>in hand has publisher's address starting with T_oky_o-to and when it is located within
>the 23 wards of the city, in Japanese-language "books" records, LC records the place as:
>
> 260 T_oky_o :$b...
> e.g., LCCN 98-461740/AJ, 99-134103, 98-458686/AJ, etc.
>
>However, LC enters in such cases in Japanese-language "serials" records:
>
> 260 T_oky_o-to :$b...
> with "-to"
> e.g., LCCN 97-659625/AJ/V, 98-659654/AJ/V, 97-657663/AJ/V, etc.
>
>This is again for cases where the publisher is located within the 23 wards of the city.
>For recording the place of publication from publisher address when the publisher is located
>in Tokyo but outside the 23 wards, both "books" and "serials" cataloging practice by LC for
>Japanese-language titles agree, i.e., T_oky_o-to ...-shi :$b...
>
>Why are there difference in treatment for the same situation with publishers within the 23
>wards of Tokyo depending on whether the title is a book or a serial?
QUESTION 9.
-- Conflicting authority records
Mr. Morimoto: We've deleted n88-543093 and replace it with n84-703252. The new heading
is established as "Shinsedai sosho (Ikuseisha).
>LC series authority record n42000252 has the following.
>
> 010 n 42000252
> 040 DLC $c DLC
> 005 19840322000000.0
> 130 0 Shinsedai s_osho.
> 642 1 $5 DLC
> 643 Tokyo $b Sekai Hy_oronsha
> 644 f $5 DLC
> 645 t $5 DLC
> 646 s $5 DLC
> 670 Hani, G. Hy_umanizumu to bunka kakumei, 1948.
>
>Our investigation indicates that the hdg. in this record has a conflict with another LC series
>authority record n88543093 for a series sharing the same series title published by a different firm.
>
> 010 n 88543093
> 040 DLC $c DLC $d DLC
> 005 19900418073459.1
> 130 0 Shinsedai s_osho
> 642 29 $5 DLC
> 643 Tokyo $b Ikuseisha K_od_okaku
> 644 f $5 DLC
> 645 t $5 DLC
> 646 s $5 DLC
> 670 Togawa, S. Kokub_o bungakuron, 1942: $b t.p. (Shinsedai s_osho)
>
>Incidentally, there is yet another LC series authority record with a qualifier n84730252.
>
> 010 n 84730252
> 040 DLC $c DLC $d DLC
> 005 19870130111116.5
> 130 0 Shinsedai s_osho (Ikuseisha)
> 642 17 $5 DLC
> 643 T_oky_o $b Ikuseisha
> 644 f $5 DLC
> 645 t $5 DLC
> 646 s $5 DLC
> 670 Miura, H. Itariya no bunka, 1941: $b t.p.
>
>Your review of the situation is thus greatly appreciated.
QUESTION 10.
-- Dai Eitekoku or Daiei Teikoku
Mr. Morimoto: We've applied two rules (Word Division rule # l, Sino-Japanese compounds
...and 4 (d) 1, Write words consisting of or containing abbreviated proper names as single
words) and concluded to romanize as Daiei Teikoku..
>This is to enquire LC's current policy in proper romanization of a Japanese phrase Dai Eitekoku
>or Daiei Teikoku (the British Empire). It appears that some relevant LC bibliographic records
>romanize this phrase as Dai Eitekoku with "Ei" attached to "teikoku", while other records treat it
>as Daiei Teikoku with "ei" attached to "Dai", for the same vernacular phrase.
>
> Dai Eiteikoku entered in LCCN:
> 92195531
>
> Daiei Teikoku entered in LCCN:
> 92228164
> 91119336
> 90169412
> 88108907
>
>ALA-LC romanization table, Japanese, Word Division 4.(d)(1) instructs:
>
> Write words consisting of or containing abbreviated proper names as single words.
> ...
> ry_u_o gakusei
> Eishibun
>
>The rule, however, does not provide any further instruction with regard to an abbreviated
>proper name to form a single word together with an element either preceding it or the one
>following it, when either is semantically possible, in this case of Dai Eiteikoku or
>Daiei Teikoku. When "Dai" is not present to still mean the British Empire, i.e,
>"Eiteikoku," the situation is straight-forward. However, the word division inconsistency
>seen among LC bibliographic records currently in question is with the cases involving
>"Eiteikoku" preceded by "Dai", i.e., Dai Eiteikoku or Daiei Teikoku.
>Your claraification of LC's current rule interpretation for proper romanization of this
>Japanese expression Dai Eiteikoku or Daiei Teikoku would thus be greatly appreciated.
QUESTION 11.
-- Duplicate authority records
Mr. Morimoto: We kept NAR for Seki, Yasushi, 1877-1958 (n 82-108823) and deleted
n 85-06368.
>LC name authority record n82-108823 has the following.
>
> 010 n82-108823
> 040 DLC $c DLC
> 100 1 Seki, Yasushi, $d 1877-1958.
> 400 1 Seki, Bansui, $d 1877-1958
> 670 Author's Kanazawa Bunko shoshi ... 1964.
>
>Then, LC name authority record n85-96368 has the following.
>
> 010 n85-96368
> 040 DLC $c DLC $d DLC
> 100 1 Seki, Sei, $d 1877-1958.
> 670 His Kanesawa monogatari, 1984: $b t.p. (Seki Sei) colophon (r; b. Meiji 10;
> d. 8/9/Sh_owa 33; Litt.D.; formerly dir., Kanagawa Kenritsu Kanazawa Bunko)
>
>Our investigation indicates, however, that, despite the different reading assigned to the
>same Chinese character for the given name ("Yasushi" versus "Sei"), these two NARs are
>for the same person. Your further review of the situation would thus be greatly appreciated.
QUESTION 12.
-- Duplicate authority records
Mr. Morimoto: We retained NAR for Tada, Shigeharu, 1928- (nr 92-015298) and deleted
n 80-039026.
>LC name authority record nr92-15298 has the following.
>
> 010 nr 92015298
> 040 DLC-R $c DLC-R
> 005 19920421061142.2
> 100 1 Tada, Shigeharu, $d 1928-
> 670 His Gurab_a-ke no saigo, 1991: $b t.p. (Tada Shigeharu) colophon
> (r; b. 1928; 1954, grad. fr. Ky_ush_u Daigaku Keizai Gakubu; free-lance writer)
>
>Then, LC name authority record n80-39026 has the following.
>
> 010 n 80039026
> 040 DLC $c DLC
> 005 19840322000000.0
> 100 1 Tada, Shigeji, $d 1928-
> 670 His Tama komminki, 1979: $b t.p. (Tada Shigeji) colophon
> (copr. by Shigeji Tada [in rom.]; b. 1928)
>
>Our investigation indicates, however, that, despite the different reading assigned to the
>same Chinese character appearing in the second (i.e., last) given name character position
>("haru" versus "ji"), these two NARs are for the same person. Your further review of the
>situation would thus be greatly appreciated.
QUESTION 13.
-- Duplicate authority records
Mr. Morimoto: We've deleted sh 99004921 and kept sh 99010612.
>LC subject authority record sh99-4921 has the following.
>
> 010 sh 99004921
> 110 2 Ky_u Awano-ke J_utaku (Kaminoyama-shi, Japan)
> 410 2 Awano-ke J_utaku (Kaminoyama-shi, Japan)
> 410 2 Sh_onaiya (Kaminoyama-shi, Japan)
> 550 Dwellings $z Japan $w g
> 670 Work cat.: 99138512: Shiseki Ush_u kaid_o Narage-juku Kaneyamagoe
> Narage-juku ky_u Awano-ke j_utaku (sh_onaiya) ... 1998.
>
>Then, another LC subject authority record sh99-10612 has the following.
>
> 010 sh 99010612
> 110 2 Daikokuya J_utaku (Kaminoyama-shi, Japan)
> 410 2 Awano-ke J_utaku (Kaminoyama-shi, Japan)
> 410 2 Ky_u Awano-ke J_utaku (Kaminoyama-shi, Japan)
> 550 Dwellings $z Japan $w g
> 670 Work cat.: 99476930: Kaminoyama-shi shitei bunkazai Narage-juku
> Daikokuya (ky_u Awano-ke) ky_u Takeda-ke j_utaku ... 1999.
>
>"Ky_u Awano-ke J_utaku (Kaminoyama-shi, Japan)" as the established heading in sh99-4921,
>while the same appears as an x-ref. in sh99-10612. Your further review of the situation
>would thus be greatly appreciated.
QUESTION 14.
-- Usage of hyphens
Mr. Morimoto: There aren't any specific rules to instruct catalogers to romanize these
words one way or other. However, our Japanese catalogers prefer to romanize this compound
consisting of abbreviated names of languages separately connecting them with hyphens
(Nichi-Chu-Ei). There was also a suggestion to trace a title in 246 field as "Nichu-Ei" if
the cataloger thinks this will greatly help end users in retrieving the item.
>This is to enquire LC's current policy in proper romanization of a Japanese phrase "Nichi-Ch_u-
>Ei" or "Nitch_u-Ei" (Japanese-Chinese-English). It appears that some relevant LC bibliographic
>records romanize this phrase as "Nichi-Ch_u-Ei" with two hyphens, while one relevant LC
>authority record treats it as "Nitch_u Ei" as two words for the same vernacular phrase.
>
> Nichi-Ch_u-Ei entered in LCCN:
>
> 96462185/AJ
> 96460847/AJ
> 92108867/AJ
> 89171649/AJ
>
> Nitch_u Ei entered in LCCN:
>
> n82038668
>
>Evidently, application of ALA-LC romanization tables, Japanese, word division,
>clause 4.(d)(1)-para. 2 would result in "Nitch_u-Ei", since it instructs:
>
> Hyphenate ... a compound consisting of abbreviated names of countries
> or languages, except when the compound is normally elided.
> ...
> Nichi-Ei-Doku igo sh_ojiten
> ...
> Nitch_u kankei
>
>Your clarification of LC's current rule interpretation for proper romanization of this
>Japanese expression "Nichi-Ch_u-Ei" or "Nitch_u-Ei" would thus be greatly appreciated.
Asian Materials Cataloging Questions and Answers
REPRINT OF A SERIAL