Print

Print


Thanks Robert.

 

Peter

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Robert Rendall
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 3:04 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Peter's translation suggestion

 

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]>
<mailto:[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]>
<mailto:[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]>
<mailto:[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.