I should have included the instruction number; I was referring to 6.27.2.2.

Robert

On Tuesday, April 30, 2019, Yang Wang <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

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.

 

 

Yang

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]OV] On Behalf Of Robert J. Rendall
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 12:31 PM
To: [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

tel.: 212 851 2449  fax: 212 854 5167

 

 

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:14 PM Adam L Schiff <[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]> on behalf of Kevin M Randall <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 8:59 AM
To: [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

[log in to unmask]

847.491.2939

 

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>On Behalf Of Yang Wang
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 8:45 AM
To: [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]OV]On Behalf Of Shorten, Jay
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 2:57 PM
To: [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 keepManṭiq 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 667Do 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]

 

 

 

 

 



--
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