Very true. I think, again, the way it is written, I think requires the heading to be in the language associated with the person, place or thing. Thus, a Ukrainian established name would be in Ukrainian Cyrillic, even though he/she may be writing a book in Russian. Peter -----Original Message----- From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of D. Brooking Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 2:40 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Peter's translation suggestion 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >