Print

Print


I guess it all depends on how you interpret “general term”.  “Preface” or “Supplement” or “Addendum” are clearly general in nature, but is “Logic” (“Manṭiq”)?   Perhaps generalness is in the eye of the beholder?

Adam Schiff

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Yang Wang
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 12:13 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Question on distinguishing two works with same name

Robert,

Sorry, but I read it [RDA 6.2.2.9, Exception] differently. It seems to suggest that only when there’s no distinct section/part title present, then, use the numeric or alphabetic designation. Manṭiq, in this case, is a distinct title, not a general term. All examples under this “Exception” seem to confirm this. The keyword in the following RDA instruction is: only.

[cid:[log in to unmask]]

Yang

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert J. Rendall
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 12:31 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Question on distinguishing two works with same name

But that instruction is followed by an exception for non-distinctive titles, and "Manṭiq" ("Logic") seems to be non-distinctive since it's the title of sections of two different works by the same author.

Robert Rendall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Original and Special Materials Cataloging, Columbia University Libraries
102 Butler Library, 535 West 114th Street, New York, NY 10027
tel.: 212 851 2449  fax: 212 854 5167


On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:14 PM Adam L Schiff <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
That’s not what RDA says to do for parts.  It’s

Tolkien, J. R. R. (John Ronald Reuel), 1892-1973. Two towers

not

Tolkien, J. R. R. (John Ronald Reuel), 1892-1973.  Lord of the rings. 2, Two towers

Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Kevin M Randall <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 8:59 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Question on distinguishing two works with same name

Would it be better to establish the titles as part titles? That is, the forms being proposed here as variants could instead be the AAPs?

100 0#  Avicenna, ǂd 980-1037. ǂt Shifāʼ. ǂn 1, ǂp Manṭiq
100 0#  Avicenna, ǂd 980-1037. ǂt Dānishnāmah-ʼi ʻAlāʼī. ǂn 1, ǂp Manṭiq

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Libraries
Northwestern University
www.library.northwestern.edu<http://www.library.northwestern.edu>
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
847.491.2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>On Behalf Of Yang Wang
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 8:45 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Question on distinguishing two works with same name

Hi Jay,

It seems to me that the qualifiers (Persian) and (Arabic) for the two works would still cause certain confusion to library users who have no direct access to the authority records. Even given as references, Mantiq (Persian) would still be mistakenly construe as “Mantiq. $l Persian” and Mantiq (Arabic) as “Mantique. $l Arabic).”

So, as an alternative, perhaps you could also consider if the following would work:

100 0#  Avicenna, ǂd 980-1037. ǂt Manṭiq (Shifāʼ.1)
100 0#  Avicenna, ǂd 980-1037. ǂt Manṭiq (Dānishnāmah-ʼi ʻAlāʼī. 1)

The current authority record (n  90647360) appears to have confused the two works as one. If so, based on your research and analysis, why not consider contributing two brand new name/title records, and mark the old record for deletion by LC [on the ground that you need to suppress thisundifferentiated title]?

The article on Avicenna’s works in Encyc. Iran. is very informative and helpful!

Just my 2 cents. Do let us know what your final decision will be.

Cheers!

Yang


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Shorten, Jay
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 2:57 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [PCCLIST] Question on distinguishing two works with same name

I need input on a new authority record I need to create.

I found that the authority record for
n  90647360 Avicenna,ǂd 980-1037.ǂt Manṭiq
has confused two separate works of the same name. One was originally written in Arabic, and was part 1 of his larger work Shifāʼ. Some of this was translated into Latin in the Middle Ages. The other was originally written in Persian, and was part 1 of his larger work Dānishnāmah-ʼiʻAlāʼī. This was never translated into Latin. (Source: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/avicenna-xi) The two are not translations of each other, though the Persian one has the same theme. (The other two extant parts of Dānishnāmah-ʼiʻAlāʼī are also in a similar situation.)

After reading through RDA and the policy statements, I propose to keep“Manṭiq” for the more well-known Arabic work, and construct the authority record for the Persian work as
Avicenna,ǂd 980-1037.ǂt Manṭiq (Persian)
with variant access points for Risālah-i manṭiq  and Dānishnāmah-ʼiʻAlāʼī.ǂn 1,ǂp Manṭiq .

I also plan to add Manṭiq (Arabic) as a variant to Manṭiq, and will add 667“Do not confuse…”notes. Is there anything else that I should be thinking of?

Jay Shorten
Cataloger, Monographs and Electronic Resources
Associate Professor of Bibliography
Description & Access Department
University Libraries
University of Oklahoma
Co-ordinator, Oklahoma (Tornado) NACO Funnel
Co-owner, PERSNAME-L, the list about personal names in bibliographic and authority records
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>