D. Brooking wrote:
[log in to unmask]"
type="cite">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:
That would cover:
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
non-Latin parallel fields, cataloger-created qualifiers may be entered
non-Latin form. The qualifiers must be in the language/script of the
body, person, or title [...]
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)
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.