As I said yesterday, in my opinion RDA takes a lot of things for
granted, which makes it difficult to apply outside of the Anglo-American
world. Sometimes RDA seems to believe things are universal, when in fact
they are not. The other day I noticed a small detail, which illustrates
this quite well. I found the whole thing rather funny - and perhaps you
will as well.
Here's one of the examples from 3.4.1.9 (Subunitsin resources consisting
of more than one unit):
3 microfiches (120 frames each)
In the German translation (soon to appear in the RDA toolkit), this
example is given like this:
3 Mikrofiches (120 Einzelbilder jeweils)
For those of you who know some German, this will look as weird as it
does to me. You wouldn't say "120 Einzelbilder jeweils" in German,
because "jeweils" (or the more common "je", which I would have preferred
here) is never put /after/ the number, but always in front of it. So, to
render it in idiomatic German, the example should read like this:
3 Mikrofiches (jeweils 120 Einzelbilder)
So, is this then simply a mistake in the German translation? Well,
that's up to debate.
Let's have a closer look: 0.11.4 addresses "instructions that specify
the use of an English-language term (e.g., publisher not identified) or
provide a controlled list of terms in English", allowing agencies to
"modify such instructions to reflect their own language or script
preferences and replace the English-language terms specified in RDA with
terms appropriate for use in their context. Authorized translations of
RDA will do likewise". So, you'd think that it shouldn't have been a
problem to give the examples in idiomatic German.
But there's one snag: The text of the rule in 3.4.1.9 explicitly states:
"specify the number of subunits in each unit as instructed under 3.4.1.7
followed by /each/." So, RDA simply takes it for granted that other
languages work as English does, and assumes that the equivalent of
"each" in another language will also have to be placed after the number.
I assume that the colleague who did the translation didn't feel she was
allowed to change the meaning of the words here, in order to reflect
common German usage.
I have now asked that the translation be changed, arguing that it would
definitely be in the "spirit" of 0.11.4 to adapt the text of 3.4.1.9 in
such a way that we can use idiomatic German, and I hope that my wish
will be granted in the near future. But my point is: We wouldn't have
had this problem in the first place, if RDA hadn't taken it for granted
that all languages work like English. In my opinion, the rule should
have simply said "adding /each/" (which would have left it open whether
"each" or its equivalent stands before or behind the number) instead of
"followed by /each/".
Heidrun
I wrote:
Kevin,
I realize that I must sound like some sort of grouch to you, always
finding fault with RDA - and, what's more, whining about things
American catalogers don't mind at all. And I'm afraid that you (and
probably many others here on the list) will have got rather tired of
hearing me say, again and again, like a parrot: The Germans do it
differently, the Germans do it differently.
Obviously, things like the full stop here will look absolutely natural
to you, as they simply continue the Anglo-American practice. And mind:
I do not in the least deny that the full stop is a perfectly
legitimate way of doing it. What I object to is the assumption that
it's the /only/ legitimate way of doing it.
For example, multipart monographs are catalogued in a hierarchical way
according to our tradition. This means that the title of the whole and
the title of the part are not even stored in the same record, let
alone connected by a full stop. They are different data elements
recorded in separate categories of different, hierarchically linked
records. Of course, we can (if desired) create a display where they
are shown separated by a full stop. But we certainly don't want to
have this full stop "hard-wired" in our data.
Well, you might say: Tough luck! If you Germans want to use RDA, then
you will simply have to start typing in these full stops, because the
rule says so. But in times of the semantic web and a "bibliographic
framework transition initiative" (how I love this phrase), one must
wonder if this really is the only way.
If RDA truly wants to become international and open to new communities
(not only library communities from other cultural and language
backgrounds, but also, perhaps, communities from quite different
areas) then I believe it must stop taking so many things for granted.
To my mind, RDA often shows a very good approach, e.g. in the idea of
separating the data recorded and the way it is presented. But the next
minute I am disappointed, because RDA just doesn't go through with its
aims in any consistent way. This may not be much of a problem for
those changing from AACR2 to RDA, but it makes things very difficult
if you are migrating to RDA from a non-Anglo-American standard.
Heidrun
On 30.04.2013 19:18, Kevin M Randall wrote:
Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:
By the way, I don't like the instruction in 2.3.1.7 (and other similar
ones) one little bit, where it says: "Use a full stop to separate the
common title from the title of the part, section, or supplement."
Doesn't RDA claim that it is a content standard, and as such doesn't
prescribe a certain way of display (see RDA 0.1: "a clear line of
separation has been established between the guidelines and instructions
on recording data and those on the presentation of data")? But what else
is the full stop here if not a matter of display? In my opinion, the
rule should only express something like this: If the conditions
described in 2.3.1.7 apply, "record the title of the part, section, or
supplement together with the common title". How this is then presented
should be left to the cataloguing agency. If ISBD is followed, then the
rules given in Appendix D apply (see D.1.2.2). But if an agency chooses
not to use ISBD, and instead display the information differently (e.g.
by showing the title of the part below the common title), this should be
acceptable in RDA as well. But as the rule in 2.3.1.7 stands, it is not.
I think when RDA says that it doesn't dictate display of data, it's probably
talking about display of elements in relation to other elements; that is, how
the elements are sequenced, what kinds of punctuation or labels are put before
elements or in between one element and another.
But as Deborah Fritz pointed out, the Title Proper is a *single element*. The different
parts of the title proper are not separate RDA elements; rather, the common title,
section numbering, and section title are all taken together to form the single element
"Title Proper". So there needs to be some way to make an intelligible
statement out of the character string that is the title proper, thus we are given
instructions on using punctuation to separate the parts. While this punctuation
convention is taken from ISBD, I don't believe that this really violates the idea of RDA
content being free of particular display conventions. In this element, RDA needed to do
*something*, and it seems very sensible to do it the ISBD way, since that's already the
way it's been done for decades; the title proper element will fit into an ISBD display
with no problem, and it can also be used in non-ISBD contexts and still make perfect
sense.
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939
Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
--
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
--
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
