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]> 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.