Re: [RDA-L] "Most appropriate language" (RDA 1.4)

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

I'm aware of 0.11.2, but I'm not sure how it relates to the "[and twelve 
others]" question.


True, under RDA an agency can choose its preferred language, and this 
doesn't have to be English. So, Paul's library could choose e.g. Finnish 
as the language of the catalog. But if I read RDA correctly, the library 
then wouldn't have a choice anymore as to the language of the "[and 
twelve others]" - it would have to be in Finnish according to 2.4.1.5.


I suppose every solution which is based on recording a text string will 
prove somewhat unsatisfactory. A truly "modern" way of recording this 
information would probably look quite different. What about an 
additional element (or subelement, or whatever) called "Number of 
additional persons, etc., in a statement of responsibility"? In this 
element, we would only record the number, e.g. "12". The rest would be a 
matter of display, i.e. the catalog would show some explanatory phrase 
before or after the number. A Finnish catalog would give this phrase in 
Finnish as default, and perhaps allow switching to English or French.


Storing the information in a language neutral way like this would make 
it mich easier to exchange data between different language communities: 
You wouldn't have to change the data to your preferred language, but 
only make a setting in your catalog as to how the element is to be 
displayed in your preferred language.


Heidrun



On 25.03.2013 17:12, JSC Secretary wrote:

Note that RDA 0.11.2 has general information about language and script.

Judy Kuhagen
JSC Secretary


On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller 
> wrote:


Paul,

RDA is actually quite clear on this matter. In this case (unlike
the one I was talking about), it's not a complete element which is
supplied, but only a part of it.

The basic rule for this can also be found in 1.4 (Language and
script): "When adding data within an element listed above, record
the added data in the language and script of the other data in the
element unless the instructions for a specific element indicate
otherwise." So, ordinarily it should be the same language as the
rest of the element, but note the exception in the last part of
the sentence.

There is indeed a specific instruction for your case in 2.4.1.5
(Statement naming more than one person, etc.):
"Optional Omission:
If a single statement of responsibility names more than three
persons, families, or corporate bodies performing the same
function, or with the same degree of responsibility, omit all but
the first of each group of such persons, families, or bodies.
Indicate the omission by summarizing what has been omitted in the
language and script preferred by the agency preparing the
description. Indicate that the summary was taken from a source
outside the resource itself as instructed under 2.2.4."

So, if the library in question has decided to use English as its
preferred language, than the "[and twelve others]" or such also
has to be in English. My personal explanation for this is that the
"[and twelve others]" is seen rather as something like a note
(which traditionally is recorded in the language of the agency),
and not as a different way of transcribing the statement of
responsibility.

I'm not really happy with this language mixture myself. And it
doesn't really fit in with a rule like 1.7.5 (Symbols): "Replace
symbols and other characters, etc., that cannot be reproduced by
the facilities available with a description of the symbol enclosed
in square brackets." Here, there is no specific instruction, so
according to the rules you must describe the symbol in the
language of the resource, although this will certainly often be
difficult for catalogers.

Maybe there should at least be an option in 2.4.1.5 to use the
language of the resource instead of the language of the agency.

Heidrun




On 25.03.2013 13 :30, Paul Davey wrote:

I'm not quite sure if I'm talking about exactly the same issue,
but this is something that is worrying me:
(Also, I do apologise to be mentioning a MARC subfield, which I
don't think purists like, but it's useful shorthand; also not to
give the RDA rule number, but I don't have access to the Toolkit,
but I'm sure readers will know what I mean)
Assume I am cataloguing a record for a non-English language
resource (in this case Finnish, but assume any language)
but I am working for a library that wants records with English as
language of cataloguing, ie value 040$b eng
If I am creating a 245$c and I want to make use of the option
that allows abbreviation to "and twelve others"
what is the appropriate way of expressing that?
[and twelve others] ?
[ja kaksitoista muuta] ?
The first must stick out like a sore thumb, and I wouldn't
 

Re: [RDA-L] "Most appropriate language" (RDA 1.4)

[J. McRee Elrod]

Paul Davey asked:

>If I am creating a 245$c and I want to make use of the option that =
>allows abbreviation to "and twelve others" what is the appropriate way 
>of expressing that?

[and 12 others], i.e., the language of the catalogue, in contrast
to the [by], [par] etc. we used to supply prior to ISBD's "/".

SLC can't do this because of the differing language of the catalogue
among our clients.  We will stick with the ISBD Latin abbreviations.

We considered Heidrun's idea of the language of the text, but coming
up with the various texts is time consuming, particularly if there are
diacritics as in French.  We also like the continuity with legacy
records.

RDA if very unilingual and Anglophone centric.





   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] "Most appropriate language" (RDA 1.4)

[JSC Secretary]

Note that RDA 0.11.2 has general information about language and script.

Judy Kuhagen
JSC Secretary


On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller <
wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote:

>  Paul,
>
> RDA is actually quite clear on this matter. In this case (unlike the one I
> was talking about), it's not a complete element which is supplied, but only
> a part of it.
>
> The basic rule for this can also be found in 1.4 (Language and script):
> "When adding data within an element listed above, record the added data in
> the language and script of the other data in the element unless the
> instructions for a specific element indicate otherwise." So, ordinarily it
> should be the same language as the rest of the element, but note the
> exception in the last part of the sentence.
>
> There is indeed a specific instruction for your case in 2.4.1.5 (Statement
> naming more than one person, etc.):
> "Optional Omission:
> If a single statement of responsibility names more than three persons,
> families, or corporate bodies performing the same function, or with the
> same degree of responsibility, omit all but the first of each group of such
> persons, families, or bodies. Indicate the omission by summarizing what has
> been omitted in the language and script preferred by the agency preparing
> the description. Indicate that the summary was taken from a source outside
> the resource itself as instructed under 2.2.4."
>
> So, if the library in question has decided to use English as its preferred
> language, than the "[and twelve others]" or such also has to be in English.
> My personal explanation for this is that the "[and twelve others]" is seen
> rather as something like a note (which traditionally is recorded in the
> language of the agency), and not as a different way of transcribing the
> statement of responsibility.
>
> I'm not really happy with this language mixture myself. And it doesn't
> really fit in with a rule like 1.7.5 (Symbols): "Replace symbols and other
> characters, etc., that cannot be reproduced by the facilities available
> with a description of the symbol enclosed in square brackets." Here, there
> is no specific instruction, so according to the rules you must describe the
> symbol in the language of the resource, although this will certainly often
> be difficult for catalogers.
>
> Maybe there should at least be an option in 2.4.1.5 to use the language of
> the resource instead of the language of the agency.
>
> Heidrun
>
>
>
>
> On 25.03.2013 13:30, Paul Davey wrote:
>
> I'm not quite sure if I'm talking about exactly the same issue, but this
> is something that is worrying me:
>
> (Also, I do apologise to be mentioning a MARC subfield, which I don't
> think purists like, but it's useful shorthand; also not to give the RDA
> rule number, but I don't have access to the Toolkit, but I'm sure readers
> will know what I mean)
>
> Assume I am cataloguing a record for a non-English language resource (in
> this case Finnish, but assume any language)
> but I am working for a library that wants records with English as language
> of cataloguing, ie value 040$b eng
>
>  If I am creating a 245$c and I want to make use of the option that
> allows abbreviation to "and twelve others"
> what is the appropriate way of expressing that?
> [and twelve others] ?
> [ja kaksitoista muuta] ?
> The first must stick out like a sore thumb, and I wouldn't countenance it
> in the case of value 040$b fin, but I just don't know how to reconcile it
> with RDA 1.4.
>
> Paul Davey
>  daveyp...@tiscali.co.uk
>
>
>
> >In RDA 1.4, we read: "When recording an element listed above as a
> >supplied element, record the supplied element in the most appropriate
> >language and script." (The elements listed are those that are normally
> >transcribed more or less exactly in the bibliographic description.)
>
> >Now I was wondering what might be a good policy for the "most
> >appropriate language". The LC-PCC PS for 1.4 doesn't comment on this
> >point, although I think there can easily be different opinions as to
> >what is "most appropriate".
>
> >For instance, according to AACR2 (1.4C6.), the probable place of
> >publication, distribution etc. is to be given "in the English form of
> >name if there is one", whereas the German RAK rules (§ 144,3) call for
> >giving such a place "if possible, in its original language form". So,
> >you'd have to use "Florence" according to AACR2, but "Firenze" according
> >to RAK.
>
> >The example given in AACR2 1.4C6. is "[Munich?]", and this example is
> >still there in RDA 2.8.2.6.2. But taking into account that RDA examples
> >are not prescriptive, but illustrative only, I think that RDA 1.4 would
> >also make it possible to write "[München?]", if one believes the
> >original language form to be the most appropriate.
>
> >Heidrun
>
>
>
> --
> -
> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
> Stuttgart Media University
> Faculty of Information and Communication
> Wolframstr. 32, 7

Re: [RDA-L] "Most appropriate language" (RDA 1.4)

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Paul,

RDA is actually quite clear on this matter. In this case (unlike the one 
I was talking about), it's not a complete element which is supplied, but 
only a part of it.


The basic rule for this can also be found in 1.4 (Language and script): 
"When adding data within an element listed above, record the added data 
in the language and script of the other data in the element unless the 
instructions for a specific element indicate otherwise." So, ordinarily 
it should be the same language as the rest of the element, but note the 
exception in the last part of the sentence.


There is indeed a specific instruction for your case in 2.4.1.5 
(Statement naming more than one person, etc.):

"Optional Omission:
If a single statement of responsibility names more than three persons, 
families, or corporate bodies performing the same function, or with the 
same degree of responsibility, omit all but the first of each group of 
such persons, families, or bodies. Indicate the omission by summarizing 
what has been omitted in the language and script preferred by the agency 
preparing the description. Indicate that the summary was taken from a 
source outside the resource itself as instructed under 2.2.4."


So, if the library in question has decided to use English as its 
preferred language, than the "[and twelve others]" or such also has to 
be in English. My personal explanation for this is that the "[and twelve 
others]" is seen rather as something like a note (which traditionally is 
recorded in the language of the agency), and not as a different way of 
transcribing the statement of responsibility.


I'm not really happy with this language mixture myself. And it doesn't 
really fit in with a rule like 1.7.5 (Symbols): "Replace symbols and 
other characters, etc., that cannot be reproduced by the facilities 
available with a description of the symbol enclosed in square brackets." 
Here, there is no specific instruction, so according to the rules you 
must describe the symbol in the language of the resource, although this 
will certainly often be difficult for catalogers.


Maybe there should at least be an option in 2.4.1.5 to use the language 
of the resource instead of the language of the agency.


Heidrun



On 25.03.2013 13:30, Paul Davey wrote:
I'm not quite sure if I'm talking about exactly the same issue, but 
this is something that is worrying me:
(Also, I do apologise to be mentioning a MARC subfield, which I don't 
think purists like, but it's useful shorthand; also not to give the 
RDA rule number, but I don't have access to the Toolkit, but I'm sure 
readers will know what I mean)
Assume I am cataloguing a record for a non-English language resource 
(in this case Finnish, but assume any language)
but I am working for a library that wants records with English as 
language of cataloguing, ie value 040$b eng
If I am creating a 245$c and I want to make use of the option that 
allows abbreviation to "and twelve others"

what is the appropriate way of expressing that?
[and twelve others] ?
[ja kaksitoista muuta] ?
The first must stick out like a sore thumb, and I wouldn't countenance 
it in the case of value 040$b fin, but I just don't know how to 
reconcile it with RDA 1.4.

Paul Davey
daveyp...@tiscali.co.uk 


>In RDA 1.4, we read: "When recording an element listed above as a
>supplied element, record the supplied element in the most appropriate
>language and script." (The elements listed are those that are normally
>transcribed more or less exactly in the bibliographic description.)

>Now I was wondering what might be a good policy for the "most
>appropriate language". The LC-PCC PS for 1.4 doesn't comment on this
>point, although I think there can easily be different opinions as to
>what is "most appropriate".

>For instance, according to AACR2 (1.4C6.), the probable place of
>publication, distribution etc. is to be given "in the English form of
>name if there is one", whereas the German RAK rules (§ 144,3) call for
>giving such a place "if possible, in its original language form". So,
>you'd have to use "Florence" according to AACR2, but "Firenze" according
>to RAK.

>The example given in AACR2 1.4C6. is "[Munich?]", and this example is
>still there in RDA 2.8.2.6.2. But taking into account that RDA examples
>are not prescriptive, but illustrative only, I think that RDA 1.4 would
>also make it possible to write "[München?]", if one believes the
>original language form to be the most appropriate.

>Heidrun



--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] "Most appropriate language" (RDA 1.4)

[Bernhard Eversberg]

Am 25.03.2013 13:30, schrieb Paul Davey:

...  I do apologise to be
mentioning a MARC subfield, which I don't think purists like, but
it's useful shorthand; also not to give the RDA rule number, but I
don't have access to the Toolkit, but I'm sure readers will know what
I mean)


"... no access to the toolkit"?
One cannot help but deplore the fact that we encounter this far too
often. Esp. in the present situation of much-needed discussion, it is
conterproductive, and a woeful disgrace for us as a profession,
that not everyone with an interest in the matter and an understanding
of the issues can make informed contributions because of a lack
of access. Libraries are there to make recorded knowledge universally
accessible and useful. If the new rules are to unfold their
usefulness to support this mission, the rule text ought to be
universally accessible. How credible is that mission if not even this
can be achieved?
And under such constraints, how realistic is it to get other
communities interested?

It is a weak excuse to say that out of economic concerns there is no
alternative to a global monopoly on all versions and translations
of the text. This would hold for MARC as well and also for BibFrame,
which no one ever questioned for being open standards in the
sense of freely available text, despite high costs of development and
maintenance.

Anyone should be welcome to provide added value by constructing
all sorts of tools to make the text useful in other ways than other
tools do, and they might well be allowed to derive a profit from
such activities. But the text as such has to be open, and in this day
and age, not just as plain text but open in a structured format that
lends itself to formatted arrangements and exploitation by software to
enhance its potential usefulness. For instance, out of any editing
system for bibliographic data, conext-sensitive links should be
enactable to display pertinent rules, free of charge.

I confess to have no access to the Toolkit either. But out of
principle, not lack of resources.
B.Eversberg

Re: [RDA-L] "Most appropriate language" (RDA 1.4)

[Paul Davey]

I'm not quite sure if I'm talking about exactly the same issue, but this is 
something that is worrying me:

(Also, I do apologise to be mentioning a MARC subfield, which I don't think 
purists like, but it's useful shorthand; also not to give the RDA rule number, 
but I don't have access to the Toolkit, but I'm sure readers will know what I 
mean)

Assume I am cataloguing a record for a non-English language resource (in this 
case Finnish, but assume any language)
but I am working for a library that wants records with English as language of 
cataloguing, ie value 040$b eng

If I am creating a 245$c and I want to make use of the option that allows 
abbreviation to "and twelve others"
what is the appropriate way of expressing that?
[and twelve others] ?
[ja kaksitoista muuta] ?
The first must stick out like a sore thumb, and I wouldn't countenance it in 
the case of value 040$b fin, but I just don't know how to reconcile it with RDA 
1.4.

Paul Davey
daveyp...@tiscali.co.uk



>In RDA 1.4, we read: "When recording an element listed above as a 
>supplied element, record the supplied element in the most appropriate 
>language and script." (The elements listed are those that are normally 
>transcribed more or less exactly in the bibliographic description.)

>Now I was wondering what might be a good policy for the "most 
>appropriate language". The LC-PCC PS for 1.4 doesn't comment on this 
>point, although I think there can easily be different opinions as to 
>what is "most appropriate".

>For instance, according to AACR2 (1.4C6.), the probable place of 
>publication, distribution etc. is to be given "in the English form of 
>name if there is one", whereas the German RAK rules (§ 144,3) call for 
>giving such a place "if possible, in its original language form". So, 
>you'd have to use "Florence" according to AACR2, but "Firenze" according 
>to RAK.

>The example given in AACR2 1.4C6. is "[Munich?]", and this example is 
>still there in RDA 2.8.2.6.2. But taking into account that RDA examples 
>are not prescriptive, but illustrative only, I think that RDA 1.4 would 
>also make it possible to write "[München?]", if one believes the 
>original language form to be the most appropriate.

>Heidrun

Re: [RDA-L] "Most appropriate language" (RDA 1.4)

[jelrod]

On 2013-03-23 05:50, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:

In RDA 1.4, we read: "When recording an element listed above as a
supplied element, record the supplied element in the most appropriate
language and script."


We interpret that to mean the language of the text, unless 
romanaization

is required because the system can not handle the script.

J. McRee (Mac) Elrod
Special Libraries Cataloguing

[RDA-L] "Most appropriate language" (RDA 1.4)

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

In RDA 1.4, we read: "When recording an element listed above as a 
supplied element, record the supplied element in the most appropriate 
language and script." (The elements listed are those that are normally 
transcribed more or less exactly in the bibliographic description.)


Now I was wondering what might be a good policy for the "most 
appropriate language". The LC-PCC PS for 1.4 doesn't comment on this 
point, although I think there can easily be different opinions as to 
what is "most appropriate".


For instance, according to AACR2 (1.4C6.), the probable place of 
publication, distribution etc. is to be given "in the English form of 
name if there is one", whereas the German RAK rules (§ 144,3) call for 
giving such a place "if possible, in its original language form". So, 
you'd have to use "Florence" according to AACR2, but "Firenze" according 
to RAK.


The example given in AACR2 1.4C6. is "[Munich?]", and this example is 
still there in RDA 2.8.2.6.2. But taking into account that RDA examples 
are not prescriptive, but illustrative only, I think that RDA 1.4 would 
also make it possible to write "[München?]", if one believes the 
original language form to be the most appropriate.


Giving places of publication, distribution etc. in their original 
language makes a lot of sense to me, because if the information *had* 
been on the resource, the source of information would indeed probably 
have read "Firenze", "München" a.s.o. So, my thinking for a possible 
policy statement at the moment runs along these lines:


For most elements, the language of the title proper is the most 
appropriate, if an element has to be supplied. But for elements from the 
production statement, publication statement, distribution statement or 
manufacture statement, the language of the country where the producer, 
publisher etc. is based should be seen as the most appropriate. Proviso: 
If the cataloger's knowledge of the language in question isn't 
sufficient, the language preferred by the agency is used instead (in our 
case, this would be German).


Do you think this would be a sensible policy, or would you argue against 
using the original language in the cases mentioned?


I'm also a bit puzzled about e.g. the "title proper of series". I 
believe I would only supply this if I found it in some other source, 
e.g. in an advertising brochure (cf. RDA 2.2.4). Then I'd simply 
transcribe this, and wouldn't have to worry about the question of 
language at all, wouldn't I?


Heidrun


--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi