I agree as well. 


Sent from my iPad

On Mar 7, 2019, at 11:49 AM, Judith A N Henchy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Carol. I agree. For those countries or subjects that  we get English only this would be helpful


From: Limited to participants in Jakarta CAP program (CAPSEA) <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Plomp, M. <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 2:34 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Bilingual books

Dear Carol,


I agree. I am interested in those bi-lingual titles and wish to see them in the circulars as English as well.





From: Limited to participants in Jakarta CAP program (CAPSEA) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mitchell, Carol
Sent: woensdag 6 maart 2019 09:59
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Bilingual books


Today we just realized we may not be consistent in how we profile bi-lingual books (English + usually the national language). The old cataloging rules (AACR2) had catalogers mark the book at primarily English then the translation. This has changed under RDA asks cataloger to determine primary language or rely on first language provided.  Also what is different is that Jakarta now uses the bib record data for ordering meaning that if the first language is Lao or Thai etc, then we may not select for English.  Therefore those who want English may be missing some titles.


Here is my question:  For those who want English should we profile bi-lingual (where the texts are equal and not summary or abstract) as English. Do those who want English care if there is another language because you will then have the English.  This is important for Cambodia and Laos where there are a lot of translations. 


In my opinion we should be acquiring those in two languages as English. If you all disagree, please state reason. I will look for a consensus.


Carol L. Mitchell, M.L.S., Ph.D.

Library of Congress, Southeast Asia Office

American Embassy, Jakarta


[log in to unmask]