I'll try to get a new report draft up quickly that will include yours and others' recent comments. And I'll add the various points that have been made to Confluence over the weekend..
Daniel
At 12:02 PM 8/25/2006, Lenore Bell wrote:
Hi Daniel,
I think you raise excellent points in your 8/23 comments. It is limiting to consider the proposal within the parameters of the current structure of the NAF and current functionality of our ILS's.
The proposal is indeed part of the broader effort to make RDA more international, but the extent to which the flexibility afforded by the proposed rule revision may serve to facilitate the work of librarians and to enhance the discovery process for users will depend on the future developments which you described so well.
I wouldn't attempt to predict how LC and/or the PCC would apply the proposed guidelines if adopted. It has been demonstrated from the series issue, that it is possible for LC and PCC to opt for different approaches. In our deliberations at LC, we did not discuss at all whether LC would or wouldn't apply the alternative option if the proposal were adopted; however, I believe that if the proposal is adopted in RDA, LC would consider the option in light of the various possible practical and technical issues which you have raised.
I'm not sure how much this advice assists you in your immediate need to draft a response. You might consider responding that under the current limitations of our catalogs and authority file structure, the proposal is not beneficial, but that one could envision future circumstances and technical functionality in which a more flexible approach to authorized headings is not only practicable, but also especially beneficial to users. It is hoped that the Committee will acknowledge in its response that there is potential for this rule revision to go beyond mere window dressing and to improve access to works of/on the Bible in a meaningful way.
Lenore
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/24/06 10:32 AM >>>
Hi again, Lenore.
After re-reading my comments from yesterday, it occurs to me that I may
have presumed too much. Specifically, in my "conclusion" (see below) I had
asked whether people thought it might "be better to endorse the proposal as
is, with the understanding that LC/PCC would likely not exercise the new
options."
Is this, in fact, a correct understanding? After all, LC's the one making
the proposal, so it's possible that LC in particular might be interested in
exercising the proposed options.
On the other hand, 5JSC/LC/8 may simply be part of the broader effort to
make RDA more international, and doesn't reflect any anticipated changes at LC.
Let me know what you think.
Thanks.
Daniel
>Dear Lenore,
>
>Thank you for this very helpful feedback. You've raised several points
>that need to considered carefully before I report back to CCDA.
>
>1. RDA rules and options are one thing; LC/PCC implementation is another.
>Once the options are in place, LC/PCC may end up continuing to do what
>it's been doing all along. QUESTION: Will it in fact be helping some
>libraries to have the alternatives available (validated? enshrined?) in
>the rules, i.e., even if the Anglo-American mainstream chooses to ignore
>them (i.e., the alternatives)? One benefit, I suppose, would be that
>those exceptional libraries would now be able to identify themselves as
>RDA-compliant. Are there others? I realize that a benefit for RDA is that
>it gets to market itself as more authentically international.
>
>2. The VIAF may be able to help with collocation and navigation issues. A
>few other respondents had suggested the same thing. Something I failed to
>address in the report draft is whether 5JSC/LC/8 envisions multiple
>established headings for the same entity within the same authority file,
>or rather individual libraries having the option to assign variant (4xx)
>forms to bibliographic records, or invoke established headings from
>non-U.S. authority files. The latter possibility suggests use of the VIAF.
>Here's a suggestion I almost added to the earlier draft, but removed it
>after thinking it might be too much of a stretch:
>
>Perhaps variant Bible headings and even entire hierarchies could be
>managed through MARC authority "context markers" and the Virtual
>International Authority File
>(< http://wotan.liu.edu/dois/data/Papers/juljuljin5862.html>VIAF), i.e.,
>similar to what has been recommended in Model C of MARBI discussion paper
>2001-05 (< http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2001/2001-dp05.html>2001-DP05).
>
>While the focus of 2001-DP05 is on non-Roman script parallel headings, the
>idea behind Model C is generalizable to include multiple cultural aspects.
>The authors of the DP suggest three such aspects (though leave open the
>possibility of more), namely: (1) the body of rules under which heading
>was formulated, (2) the language of catalog in which heading will be used;
>and (3) the audience for whom the heading is intended.
>
>A research-level cataloging agency in the U.S. could formulate a 1XX
>heading in the context of RDA cataloging rules, and specify an
>English-language, academic audience. Cross-references could be provided
>from variant forms, irrespective of script, that were established
>according the same rules (in which case they would be tagged 4XX) or
>within other contexts (in which case, 7XX, and linked to parallel
>authority records through the VIAF).
>
>Here's an example of how the technique might be applied to sacred scriptures:
>
>008/10 (Cataloging rules code): a (AACR2)
>008/11 (Subject system/thesaurus): a (LCSH)
>040 $b (Language of cataloging): eng (English)
>130 0 $a Bible. Old Testament
>430 0 $a Bible. O.T.
>430 0 $a Hebrew Bible
>730 4 $a Tanakh $7 local/judaic/eng $0 abc1234
>730 4 $a
>[]
> $7 JNUL/academic/heb $0 xyx789
>
>In this example, the 130 field is the preferred form, the 430s are
>non-preferred references, and the 730s are alternate preferred forms,
>linked to another authority file through a control number in subfield $0.
>A 730 could then be flipped to a 130 if the context indicated in subfield
>$7 were culturally appropriate to the host catalog.
>
>
>3. Thank you, Lenore, for correcting me about the extent to which Biblical
>works are currently arranged hierarchically (i.e., in most cases not
>beyond "Bible. O.T."). This is a very important point. I apologize for
>muddying the waters.
>
>SO, IN CONCLUSION, dear colleagues, please reconsider the proposal, as
>Lenore suggests. Let me know whether you think, based on Lenore's
>corrections and clarifications, whether it would in fact be better to
>endorse the proposal as is, with the understanding that LC/PCC would
>likely not exercise the new options, or whether you feel the proposal
>ought to be rejected. You are also welcome to endorse one of the other
>proposed solutions (see http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/BibleOTtable7.pdf).
>I will revise my report accordingly. The actual feedback to CCDA,
>incidentally, will be in the form of rule-by-rule or section-by-section
>comments, but it seems wise to keep something in a report-like format for
>future AJL reference.
>
>Also: Please keep in mind that a proposal regarding Internationalization
>( http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/docs/5lc5.pdf) is also on the table.
>If you have comments about that one (or, for that matter, anything else
>about RDA currently under review), please let me know and I'll try to get
>them into the "Confluence" comments wiki for you.
>
>I'm trying to keep track of our committee efforts at
> http://www.library.yale.edu/~dlovins/ajl/index.html
>
>Thanks.
>
>Daniel
>
>
>
>At 06:08 PM 8/22/2006, Lenore Bell wrote:
>Dear Daniel,
>
>Many thanks for considering RDA proposal 5JSC/LC/8, and for urging
>Cataloging Committee members to do the same.
>
>As I mentioned at the convention, LC Hebraica Team members in general
>preferred other approaches (see
> http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/BibleOTtable7.pdf), but accepted this
>compromise solution to ensure that some type of proposal might be put
>forward to raise awareness and initiate a dialogue about concerns.
>
>I would like to note the following for the group's consideration regarding
>your draft response:
>
>* Keep in mind that these are recommendations for RDA, and do not
>address if and how LC and/or the PCC might apply the alternative. I agree,
>however, that the question of how the use of sanctioned but alternative
>forms of headings would impact collocation does require some further
>consideration from a practical standpoint. In thinking about this issue,
>I envision the Virtual International Authority File, which Barbara Tillett
>described at the convention, as a model, and hope that a similar type of
>approach could enable linkages between variant forms of headings which
>could be alternatively selected for display in a given catalog or by an
>individual catalog user.
>
>* Regarding the points raised about hierarchy, the authorized forms
>of Bible headings currently do not reflect the hierarchy demonstrated in
>the tree diagram, for example, the authorized heading is "Bible. O.T.
>Exodus" not "Bible. O.T. Pentateuch. Exodus." LC's database, for example,
>does not index "Bible. O.T. Pentateuch" followed by the individual five
>books. Everything after "Bible. O.T." is strictly alphabetical. The
>conceptual hierarchy "Bible. O.T. Pentateuch. Exodus" doesn't even appear
>in the authority structure as a 430, but perhaps it should. Again, there
>needs to be some follow up consideration of how headings might be
>referenced to allow the full range of relationships to be reflected in the
>catalog to assist with indexing and discovery.
>* The proposal does address the issue of canonical differences with
>regard to entering individual books directly under "Bible."
>* The proposal is not encouraging contradictory headings to coexist
>in individual catalogs (although such a scenario is one of the models LC
>considered but did not advance). "Tanakh. Ezekial" could be assigned to
>all works on/about the book of Ezekial represented in a catalog, and
>bibliographic file maintenance, supported by a good global update
>capability, could preclude split files.
>
>I urge the Cataloging Committee members to consider the draft proposal
>further, and in addition, to take a look at the other alternatives which
>LC considered (see the document cited above, as well as the analysis
>at http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/bibleprocon.pdf Perhaps the group could
>endorse one of the "rejected" models or could recommend yet anthoer
>approach not previously considered.
>
>Thanks again,
>Lenore
>
>
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/18/06 5:06 PM >>>
>Dear colleagues,
>
>I have received comments from three of you, and so far (with myself making
>4) there seems to be a consensus that the adoption of proposal 5JSC/LC/8
>would not in fact serve the interests of AJL libraries. Of course, four
>opinions is not a statistically valid sample of our group, and I recognize
>that some of your are on vacation (or just became parents!) and therefore
>might not be able to respond. But the deadline is Aug. 27th, and I need to
>be able to give some kind of feedback to CCDA before then.
>
>Please take a look at the attached report and let me know what you think.
>It really only covers the first point of the proposal, since the other two
>were relatively minor (e.g., substituting abbreviated forms with
>spelled-out forms).
>
>I would like to get an up or down vote from each committee member so I can
>speak on behalf the full committee. If there turns out not to be a
>consensus--or even majority opinion--I can indicate this in the report too.
>I also very much value input from those not on the committee.
>
>Thanks for your interest.
>
>Daniel
