Print

Print


We'd better spell it Dostoyevsky since that's the authorized form.  
Otherwise, this is perfect.

Robert.

Fletcher, Peter wrote:
> This is what I have come up with, using some of Ben's language:
>
> Language/script of heading vs. language/script of resource being
> cataloged: These guidelines assume that parallel non-Latin data for a
> heading will be supplied in the language and script of the heading.
> However, several members of the task force noted that some catalogers,
> particularly in the HAPY community of practice, provide parallel data
> for a heading in the language of the resource being cataloged,
> regardless of the language/script associated with the heading. For
> example, for a Yiddish translation of a Russian work by Dostoevsky, the
> non-Latin parallel data for both a uniform title and the name heading
> for Dostoevsky would be rendered in Yiddish/Hebrew script instead of
> Russian/Cyrillic. Should catalogers always supply parallel non-Latin
> data for a heading in the language and script of the heading, or is it
> permissible (or useful) to use the language and script that appear on
> the resource being cataloged?  The task force did not reach consensus on
> this matter but believes it is an issue that PCC should be aware of and
> may wish to address and form a policy.
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 12:33 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Peter's translation suggestion
>
> Might I suggest a slight reordering and re-wording of the paragraph for
> clarity?  Something like:
>
> "These guidelines assume that parallel non-Latin data will be supplied
> in the language and script of the heading. However, several members of
> the task force noted that some catalogers, particularly in the HAPY
> community of practice, may provide parallel data for a heading in the
> language of the resource being cataloged, regardless of the
> language/script associate with the heading. For example, for a Yiddish
> translation of Russian a work by Dostoevsky, the non-Latin parallel data
> for both a uniform title and the name heading for Dostoevsky would be
> rendered in Yiddish/Hebrew instead of Russian/Cyrillic. Should
> catalogers always supply parallel non-Latin data in the language and
> script of the heading, or is it permissible [useful?] to use the
> language and script that appear on the piece being cataloged?  The task
> force did not reach consensus on this matter; but it believes [we
> believe?] it to be an that PCC should be aware of, and may wish to
> address in the future."
>
> BTW I'm not sure if this is really a HAPY issue or just a Hebrew/Yiddish
> issue, but that's ok.
>
> --Ben
>
> Benjamin Abrahamse
> Head, Serials Cataloging Section
> Cataloging and Metadata Services
> MIT Libraries
> 617-253-7137
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Fletcher, Peter
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 3:07 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Peter's translation suggestion
>
> I would like to include a paragraph in the report such as:
>
> "Translations/language/script of heading: The topic of translations,
> especially from one non-Latin script to another, brought into focus the
> issue of giving the parallel non-Latin data either in the
> language/script of the heading or of the resource being cataloged.
> Several members of the task force noted that especially some catalogers
> among the HAPY community often provide parallel data for a heading in
> the language of the resource being cataloged, regardless of the
> language/script associate with the heading. For example, for a Yiddish
> translation of Russian a work by Dostoevsky, the non-Latin parallel data
> for both a uniform title and the name heading for Dostoevsky would be
> rendered in Yiddish script, not Russian/Cyrillic. The inclination of the
> task force to allow or disallow this practice was not uniform, but the
> task force believes it is an issue that PCC should be aware of and may
> wish to address among its members and form a firm policy. As these
> guidelines are written the assumption is that the parallel non-Latin
> data will be in the language/script of the heading."
>
>
> This would require some kind of feedback from PCC.
>
> Also, just a reminder, it is my understanding that PCC Standing
> Committee on Standards will review it first, and then it would go to the
> PCC Policy Committee for review and approval. At any point in the
> process it might come back to us for revision, etc.
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of David W Reser
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 6:01 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Peter's translation suggestion
>
> Just a question-- so are the guidelines going out for review for
> feedback?  If so, I can see reinstating the translation issue and
> specifically asking for feedback.  If not, I'd be somewhat uncomfortable
> with putting back in if we're having so much trouble understanding it
> (at least I am!).
> Dave
>
>
>
>   
>>>> "D. Brooking" <[log in to unmask]> 3/24/2010 6:50 PM >>>
>>>>         
> I am not sure if Robert is really the only person with translation
> issues,
> but I do agree with his idea to remove references to translations, put
> back in the examples, etc. *if it is not too late for that.*
>
> If we make the rule (i.e., supply the non-Latin in lang/script of the
> heading itself, not the lang/script as found on piece) then we can see
> what kind of feedback we get when the guidelines are put out for review.
>
> That way we may see more clearly who has issues.
>
> On the other hand, a quick check of Tolstoy on OCLC shows that there are
>
> plenty of Arabic and Hebrew parallel fields to his heading, but
> virtually
> no CJK ones. Which is the expected divide between HAPY and CJK
> communities
> I believe. HAPY being very free with headings and CJK being very strict.
>
>
>
> ************
> 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, Robert Rendall wrote:
>
>   
>> If I'm really the only person who has trouble with translations, then
>>     
> I won't mind if we remove all references to "translations are not
>   
>> covered" from the guidelines and report and put the simple examples we
>>     
> had earlier back in.  If this is a nonissue for most people we
>   
>> shouldn't complicate our report by making it one.
>>
>> Robert.
>>
>> Fletcher, Peter wrote:
>>
>> Yes #402662369 is how I supposed things would normally be done ...
>>
>> We may get feedback from SCS, I don't know, but they may not
>>     
> understand
>   
>> our trouble with translations. We'll see.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>> Behalf Of Robert Rendall
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 2:50 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Peter's translation suggestion
>>
>> Yes, as I said earlier, not everything with a Russian or Arabic
>> corporate body in a 710 is necessarily a translation from Russian or
>> Arabic.  Or see for example the 610 in OCLC #53475867.  But if we've
>> decided that the preferred practice is to enter all headings in the
>> language of the body, person, or title, and the Hebrew practice that
>> made sense to me is exceptional, then not even translations are a
>> problem any more.  After all, I just found OCLC #402662369, and that's
>>     
> a
>   
>> PCC record created right here at Columbia.
>>
>> Robert.
>>
>> D. Brooking wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>
>