Print

Print


With all due respect, I find that a bit of a dodge. People are still going to need to look things up alphabetically.

 

b

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 11:54 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Request for assistance: Buddhist text in three languages

 

This should be viewed as a temporary situation, imposed by the limitations of a MARC-based authority control system with authority uniqueness enforced by name strings.

 

                                                                                Steve McDonald

                                                                                [log in to unmask]

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 11:46 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Request for assistance: Buddhist text in three languages

 

I would just like to point out that, while this may satisfy the cataloger’s need to FRBRize everything, it strikes me as pretty unlikely that a researcher trying to get their hands on the Viṃśatikāvijñaptimātratāsiddhi of Vasubandhu in its original languge would think to look for it under “Viṃśatikāvijñaptimātratāsiddhi. Sanskrit”, since the title is already in Sanskrit. If the work were translated many times into many different languages it’s entirely possible that the work in its original language would not show in the first page of an alphabetical index.

 

And of course under the current state of affairs, with some catalogers doing one thing and other doing something else, users have no way of predicting whether a work in its original language will fall under the title of the work in its original language, or under the title of the work further qualified by the language.

 

B

 

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 10:22 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Request for assistance: Buddhist text in three languages

 

Just to add to what Adam has said, in RDA, unlike AACR2

Vasubandhu. ǂt Viṃśatikāvijñaptimātratāsiddhi

stands for the work. It does *not* stand for any particular expression, including the original expression. Works and expressions are separate entities and the same NAR (and therefore the same AAP) cannot be used to represent both entities.

So Adam is correct, you can follow either practice, but be aware if you follow the LC practice you are giving an access point for the work in the first 700 field, not for any Sanskrit expression.

But you say that given a free choice you would rather use

Vasubandhu. ǂt Viṃśatikāvijñaptimātratāsiddhi. $l Sanskrit

Well, you do have that free choice, so go for it! :-) The LC-PCC PS is LC's practice only, other PCC catalogers aren't required to follow it.

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Adam L. Schiff <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 5:58:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Request for assistance: Buddhist text in three languages

 

You can do either.  LC will use the work access point for the original language expression.  But you could be more true to RDA by adding Sanskrit for that particular expression.  

Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900

 

 

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:57 AM -1000, "Ian Fairclough" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

PCCLIST readers,

 

OCLC 946975293 "Materials towards the study of Vasubandhuʼs Viṁśikā : ǂb Sanskrit and Tibetan critical editions of the verses and autocommentary, an English translation and annotations ..." currently has:

1000 Vasubandhu, ǂe author.

24010Viṃśatikāvijñaptimātratāsiddhi. ǂl Polyglot

 

I 'm in process of replacing field 240 with:

 

70002ǂi Container of (work): ǂa Vasubandhu. ǂt Viṃśatikāvijñaptimātratāsiddhi.

70002ǂi Container of (expression): ǂa Vasubandhu. ǂt Viṃśatikāvijñaptimātratāsiddhi. ǂl Tibetan.

70002ǂi Container of (expression): ǂa Vasubandhu. ǂt Viṃśatikāvijñaptimātratāsiddhi. ǂl English.

 

The first of these represents not only the work but the original expression, in Sanskrit.  I didn't put:

 

70002ǂi Translation of: ǂa Vasubandhu. ǂt Viṃśatikāvijñaptimātratāsiddhi.

70002ǂi Container of (expression): ǂa Vasubandhu. ǂt Viṃśatikāvijñaptimātratāsiddhi. ǂl Sanskrit.

 

because my understanding is that an expression in the original language is represented by the access point for the work. 

 

I'd appreciate any comments.  Particularly on how the relationship designator "Container of (work)" is being used in place of not only a work but an expression in the original language.  It seems odd to me, and given a free choice I'd sooner see the first 700 field with expression and subfield l Sanskrit.  At least the three fields for the expressions would correspond to each other.

 

Sincerely - Ian

 

Ian Fairclough

Cataloging and Metadata Services Librarian

George Mason University

703-993-2938

[log in to unmask]