No according to the 2015 and 2016 updates to RDA we need to go to the IFLA Consolidated Edition of ISBD and under 4.3.4 it tells us that indeed we go space = space so we don't need to change the example.
Heidi G. Lerner Metadata Librarian for Hebraica and Judaica Metadata Dept. Stanford University Libraries Stanford, CA 94305-6004 ph: 650-725-9953 fax: 650-725-1120 e-mail: ler...@stanford.edu ________________________________ From: Heb-naco <heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu> on behalf of Shinohara, Jasmin <jsh...@pobox.upenn.edu> Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2016 1:07 PM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] To Heidi L./ Jasmin Sh re.: recording Hebrew date in vernacular field Hmm. Does the example in the middle of HCM2 p. 50 need to be changed? Because that’s what I’ve been following. From: Heb-naco [mailto:heb-naco-bounces+jshino=pobox.upenn....@lists.osu.edu] On Behalf Of Kohn, Roger Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 3:41 PM To: 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' Subject: [Heb-NACO] To Heidi L./ Jasmin Sh re.: recording Hebrew date in vernacular field --- Heidi, Jasmin, In an email to me, dated June 02, 2014, Joan Biella, noted that “D.1.2.5 doesn't say ‘space-equals sign-space.’ Apparently you're supposed to run the two dates up against one another.” So “אדר ב' תשע"ד=2014” (with *no* space before and after the equal sign …) All the best, - r. 7-3997 From: Heb-naco [mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu] On Behalf Of Heidi G Lerner Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 2:27 PM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel Cc: Shtuhl, Smadar Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] recording hebrew date in vernacular field Hi Jasmin, You have a choice in the situation. If you choose to code it for BIBCO you will have to follow the PCC Guidelines for Creating Bibliographic Records in Multiple Character Sets. It appears that any update to the 2010 document has yet to appear so that is what PCC catalogers have to work with. In other words you will have to substitute "Arabic" numbers for the Hebrew letters of the date. LC's policy is different as you point out. RDA Hebraica Cataloging functino is presenting the options for Hebraica catalogers. Catalogers at LC must use Hebrew letters in the vernacular field; PCC catalogers have to substitute Arabic numbers; non-PCC and non-LC catalogers can choose to do what they want. I know that we have discussed this issue in the past and I honestly can't remember if our community was engaged by the task force working on preparing the next version of the above document to conform to RDA rules. Sharon Benamou was a member of that committee. I will try and get in touch with her to find out the status of that group. I believe that Peter Fletcher is the head of that group. I hope that this helps clarify the different options available to you. If the issue has not been brought to the attention of the task force I will add it to our agenda for our June 19th meeting in Charleston. Meanwhile your edition statement should be recorded as Mahadurah rishonah מהדורה ראשונה since that is how it appears your resource (RDA 2.5.1.4). Best, Heidi Heidi G. Lerner Metadata Librarian for Hebraica and Judaica Metadata Dept. Stanford University Libraries Stanford, CA 94305-6004 ph: 650-725-9953 fax: 650-725-1120 e-mail: ler...@stanford.edu<mailto:ler...@stanford.edu> ________________________________ From: Heb-naco <heb-naco-bounces+lerner=stanford....@lists.osu.edu<mailto:heb-naco-bounces+lerner=stanford....@lists.osu.edu>> on behalf of Shinohara, Jasmin <jsh...@pobox.upenn.edu<mailto:jsh...@pobox.upenn.edu>> Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2016 10:44 AM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel Cc: Shtuhl, Smadar Subject: [Heb-NACO] recording hebrew date in vernacular field Hi all, I’m trying to understand how to best parse HCM2’s recommendation vis a vis the PCC practice for Alternative (1st) … : 2.5.2, p. 16. “If the date of publication is represented only in Hebrew letters, the numbers must be rendered in Western-style Arabic numerals.” One example is then given for “715 [1954 or 1955]” in both the vernacular and romanized 264 fields. (HCM2, p. 37) Before that, though, the LC practice for Alternative (1st) states: … generally supply non-Latin scripts for the languages/scripts …: …Hebrew, Yiddish, … . If following minimal level cataloguing guidelines, the records for these languages/scripts may be fully romanized.” (HCM2, p. 36-37) I have in front of me the following in the source: מהדורה ראשונה, אדר ב', תשע"ד, 2014 We take dates following ed. statements to be pub. dates, but in this case our date of publication is NOT “represented only in Hebrew letters”, so do we follow the PCC practice on 2.5.2 and render the date in Arabic numerals? Also, as per the LC practice, we are to supply the non-Latin scripts. But we are following more than minimal level cataloguing, so should they be romanized? My vernacular 250 is מהדורה 1.; is the vernacular 264_1 אדר 2., 774 = 2014 or אדר ב' תשע"ד = 2014 (The romanized 264_1 is Adar 2., 774 [March 2014] = 2014, with fixed fields DtSt=e, Date 1=2014, Date 2=03.) Please advise. Thanks, Jasmin --- Jasmin Shinohara Hebraica Cataloging Librarian University of Pennsylvania Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center 3420 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206 T. 215-746-6397 F. 215-573-9610 jsh...@upenn.edu<mailto:jsh...@upenn.edu>
_______________________________________________ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
