Print

Print


I am not sure if this makes a difference at this point or not, but the 
assumption that if we have eliminated translations, we have eliminated 
this issue is not true.

For example, a work that is originally in Russian, but two of 
the editors are Ukrainian and their names are set up in Ukrainian 
(romanized). You need to choose the *Ukrainian* macro to get the 
correct Cyrillic, not the Russian. There may be many reasons the 
authorized form of a name does not match the language of the resource 
itself. The problem is much more frequent with translations, but by no 
means unknown for non-translations.

We still may not want to figure out the solution to this, but we need to 
be aware that it's not just translations vs. non-translations.



************
Diana Brooking             (206) 685-0389
Cataloging Librarian       (206) 685-8782 fax
Suzzallo Library           [log in to unmask]
University of Washington
Box 352900
Seattle WA  98195-2900

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010, Fletcher, Peter wrote:

> Ok, sorry about the miscommunication. I think I want to convey that the
> script must be that of the heading, as opposed to the resource being
> cataloged in 2.5.2.1, but now since we have eliminated translations it
> is a moot point since there is only one language involved and the
> language of the headings is the same as the resource being cataloged.
>
> So, I think your point is well taken for 2.5.2.2.
>
> And the wording in 2.5.2.1 can stay as:
>
> "The headings must be in the language/script of the body, person, or
> title, and the form entered can be derived from the resource itself or
> if necessary from a standard reference source in the language/script of
> the heading."
>
> I suppose there are occasions where we can over think a problem.
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of David W Reser
> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:25 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Peter's translation suggestion
>
> Peter--  I was only actually complaining about the wording about
> qualifiers (2.5.2.2), didn't really have a problem with 2.5.2.1 (the
> same may not be true of other commenters).
>
> As for 2.5.2.1, I could live with what was there, or live with removing
> the second sentence, but I don't think the replacement text "**The
> language/script used must be the one associated with the heading.** "
> actually says anything, or at least could be open to many
> interpretations.
>
> Sorry not to be clearer earlier.
> Dave
>
>
>>>> "Fletcher, Peter" <[log in to unmask]> 3/24/2010 3:05 PM >>>
> Sorry, I should have pointed out where these texts come from in the doc.
> You are right about the location of the qualifiers example, the other
> part comes from 2.5.2.1.
>
> With your suggestion 2.5.2.1 would read:
>
> "Non-Latin data may be supplied in parallel fields for headings
> established in non-standard romanization or in a conventional
> Latin-script form. When possible, prefer a non-Latin form that
> corresponds most closely to the authorized Latin form."
>
> What about:
>
> "Non-Latin data may be supplied in parallel fields for headings
> established in non-standard romanization or in a conventional
> Latin-script form. **The language/script used must be the one associated
> with the heading.** Prefer a non-Latin form that corresponds most
> closely to the authorized Latin form."
>
>
> and at 2.5.2.2 it could be left as David suggests:
>
> "In non-Latin parallel fields, cataloger-created qualifiers may be
> entered in a non-Latin form. When possible, prefer a non-Latin form that
> corresponds most closely to the authorized Latin form of the qualifier."
>
> Peter
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of David W Reser
> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 6:15 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Peter's translation suggestion
>
> So, if we are having too much difficulty trying to put parameters on
> what qualifiers should look like in an optional approach (correct me if
> I'm wrong that we're talking about 2.5.2.2. here), maybe we should just
> omit the statement "The qualifiers must be in the language/script of the
> heading itself, and the form entered can be derived from the resource,
> or if necessary from a standard reference source in the language/script
> of the heading."  The point of the option was that you could use
> non-Latin qualifiers in the optional approach (which the first sentence
> already says).  Leave it at that?
>
> Dave
>
>>>> "Fletcher, Peter" <[log in to unmask]> 3/23/2010 7:28 PM >>>
> No kidding.
>
> I think the problem with the statements:
>
> The headings must be in the language/script of the body,
> person, or title [...] and:
>
> In non-Latin parallel fields, cataloger-created qualifiers may be
>  entered in a non-Latin form.  The qualifiers must be in the
>  language/script of the body, person, or title [...]
>
> is that what I meant to say is the language of the "heading" itself,
> which can be a body, person, or title (730, 240, 130). Would it be
> clearer to say "headings must be in the language of the heading itself"?
> This way you don't get confused about whether or not the script is taken
> from the piece at hand.
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Robert Rendall
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 2:19 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Peter's translation suggestion
>
> Well, at least my assertion that "nobody does this" was wrong!  I was
> waiting for someone to contradict me...
>
> I'm happy to start thinking in terms of wrapping up now rather than
> raising any more problems!  It's been a long ride.
>
> R.
>
> D. Brooking wrote:
>> Well, this is just one library's practice in some of its non-Latin
>> units. So I wouldn't say you are "wrong."
>>
>> Part of the problem with these guidelines is that it is up to *us* to
>> suggest what is wrong and right now. But I think no one is up for
>> diverging too much from what is current practice, given the
>> uncertainties that we've already discussed in many places. But even
>> determining what is current practice is not straighforward at all!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ************
>> Diana Brooking             (206) 685-0389
>> Cataloging Librarian       (206) 685-8782 fax
>> Suzzallo Library           [log in to unmask]
>> University of Washington
>> Box 352900
>> Seattle WA  98195-2900
>>
>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010, Robert Rendall wrote:
>>
>>> If you get Arabic colleagues to supply Arabic-script parallel fields
>>> for your Cyrillic records, then I'm wrong and the text is fine as it
>>> is!  I'm happy to let the issue rest.
>>>
>>> Robert.
>>>
>>> D. Brooking wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Robert said, "I think I would summarize current practice as: if a
>>>> non-Latin parallel heading is entered, the heading/qualifiers must
>>>> normally be in the script of the title being cataloged."
>>>>
>>>> I think this is why I didn't understand the issue. Because it's not
>>>> our current practice. Actually, our practice here for Cyrillic
>>>> anyway is to always supply the non-latin parallel heading in the
>>>> language/script of the heading entity itself. That's why we supply
>>>> nothing for English or Czech name headings in a record. And why we
>>>> supply Bulgarian for a Bulgarian name, even if the title being
>>>> cataloged is in Russian or French.
>>>>
>>>> But if we have a Hebrew name or an Arabic name heading in a record
>>>> for a title in Russian or Serbian, then the Cyrillic catalogers
>>>> usually don't supply a parallel heading at all! (Because we are
>>>> clueless in Hebrew and Arabic.) But there are those instances where
>>>> we get a colleague to supply what's necessary if we think it is
> vital.
>>>>
>>>> (I don't know what our CJK catalogers are up to, though, they have a
>
>>>> completely separate shop...)
>>>>
>>>> So to make a long story short, I would be comfortable with the
>>>> language that's in there now, because it mirrors our current
>>>> practice here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ************
>>>> Diana Brooking             (206) 685-0389
>>>> Cataloging Librarian       (206) 685-8782 fax
>>>> Suzzallo Library           [log in to unmask]
>>>> University of Washington
>>>> Box 352900
>>>> Seattle WA  98195-2900
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010, Robert Rendall wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> See below.
>>>>>
>>>>> D. Brooking wrote:
>>>>>       See comments below,
>>>>>
>>>>>       On Tue, 23 Mar 2010, Robert Rendall wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>             Where are we now with that phrase "The headings must be
>
>>>>> in the language/script of the body, person, or title"?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>       --> DB: I am sorry, I can't find this thread. Is it the
>>>>> presence of the phrase (appears in several places) that is the
> issue,
>>>>>       or just the wording of the phrase? The wording does sound
>>>>> awkward. What does RDA say? the "entity"???
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The most recent draft says:
>>>>>
>>>>> Non-Latin data may be supplied in parallel fields for headings
>>>>> established in non-standard romanization or in a conventional
>>>>> Latin-script
>>>>> form.  The headings must be in the language/script of the body,
>>>>> person, or title [...]
>>>>> and:
>>>>> In non-Latin parallel fields, cataloger-created qualifiers may be
>>>>> entered in a non-Latin form.  The qualifiers must be in the
>>>>> language/script of the body, person, or title [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> That would cover:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) entering Hebrew-script parallel fields for Israeli corporate
>>>>> bodies appearing in Latin-script records for titles in English
>>>>> (current
>>>>> practice, at least occasionally or for some scripts)
>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) entering Hebrew-script parallel fields for Israeli corporate
>>>>> bodies appearing in Cyrillic-script records for titles in Russian
> (not
>>>>> current practice for any scripts, as far as I know)
>>>>>
>>>>> I think I would summarize current practice as: if a non-Latin
>>>>> parallel heading is entered, the heading/qualifiers must normally
>>>>> be in the
>>>>> script of the title being cataloged.  Except for bib. records for
>>>>> Latin-script titles, where the authorized form is already in the
> same
>>>>> script at the title cataloged and takes care of the need for a
>>>>> heading legible to the monolingual patron, so you can add a
> parallel
>>>>> heading in another script if you feel like it.  But I don't know
>>>>> how much sense that makes as a general principle.
>>>>>
>>>>> Robert.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>