Proposal by CCC: Add instructions to supply terms indicating the function recorded under the optional addition provisions at 2.7.4.4, 2.8.4.4, 2.9.4.4 or 2.10.4.4, in a language and script preferred by the cataloguing agency

Tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Proposal by CCC: Add instructions to supply terms indicating the function recorded under the optional addition provisions at 2.7.4.4, 2.8.4.4, 2.9.4.4 or 2.10.4.4, in a language and script preferred by the cataloguing agency

  1. John Myers says:

    To be blunt, this proposal feels a little nit-picky, but I don’t see anything objectionable to it. I did look at 2.4.1.7 Clarification of Role (for statement of responsibility) to see if it specified whether to use the language preferred or the language of the manifestation. It doesn’t, so in keeping with 2.4.1.5 which the CCC uses as justification for its proposal and to keep all such supplied statements in alignment, I suggest that 2.4.1..7 be rolled into CCC’s proposal.

    • Dominique Bourassa says:

      I agree with John Myers. I had the same reaction when reading this proposal. I always felt it was a bit strange that 2.4.1.7 did not say anything about the language of the agency but 2.4.1.5 did. Following 2.4.1.5 and 2.4.1.7, a book in French could have a statement of responsibility that says something like: “[textes rassemblés par] Monsieur X [and six others]. Adding 2.4.1.7 to this proposal makes sense.

  2. Kathy Glennan says:

    With all due respect to John and Dominique, I’m not sure I agree with folding 2.4.1.7 into this proposal. Traditionally (I think!), we have tried to supply clarifying information about a role in a SoR in the language of the resource — supplying what we think the publisher *should* have said. This is in the spirit of 1.4.

    Note that the CCC proposal came out of the work of the French translation team; they obviously haven’t had a problem with 2.4.1.7, since that wasn’t part of this proposal.

    Obviously, there’s a tension here in RDA.

    Thus, I would like to hear from other CC:DA members and liaisons specifically about their thoughts on folding this approach into 2.4.1.7 as well.

    I should note that overall I support this proposal.

    • Dominique Bourassa says:

      I don’t understand why CCC would want to add a term in the language of the agency to clarify the function of publisher, distributor, etc. but not do the same for the term clarifying the role of the statement of responsibility (2.4.1.7). It does not make sense to me and does not seem consistent. Thinking like the French speaker I am, I can think right away of a situation that might look a bit confusing to users that CCC might not have thought about. If we look at what could potentially happen in a bibliographic record of book in English for an English versus a French agency, we might have (if we do not also change 2.4.1.7):

      English agency:
      • Term clarifying the statement of responsibility: [editor]
      • Term indicating the function of the publisher: [publisher]

      Same thing for a French agency:
      • Term clarifying the statement of responsibility: [editor]
      • Term indicating the function of the publisher: [éditeur]

      To me all these terms should be either in the language of the cataloging agency or all in the language of the manifestation.

  3. Kathy Glennan says:

    Comments from Francis Lapka, Yale University:

    I think the proposal is fine as-is.

    I think it indirectly highlights one of the merits of the approach advocated in the BL’s discussion paper on RDA 2.7-2.10, which would result in a cleaner separation of transcribed data from data that is recorded or described by a relationship.

    In the present scenario, the ideal method for recording the function of the agent is to employ a relationship designator in combination with one of the elements at 21.2 to 21.5. This method best serves the goal of internationalization, because the URI for the designator will be associated with a multi-lingual set of labels for that function, and any given catalog display can then select the label that is most useful given the linguistic context.

  4. Robert L. Maxwell says:

    I not only think this revision is unnecessary, I think all the “2.X.4.4” instructions should be removed. If we are recording information about a producer’s name, a publisher’s name, a distributor’s name, or a manufacturer’s name *as an element* as we are instructed in 2.7.4, 2.8.4, 2.9.4, and 2.10.4, then the fact that we have recorded that information as that element already implies the function of the name we’ve recorded–producer, publisher, distributor, manufacturer. There should be no need either to record or to add a statement of function. This is the case whether we’re recording something in MARC 264, where it’s perfectly clear what the function is, or in some future entity-relationship database structure (at least it’d better be clear there, too).

    Bob, SAC

    • Dominique Bourassa says:

      If this context, you are totally right, Bob. And I would not mind to see these instructions go, either. Since we have field 264 , I never felt I had to add a term to specify the function of the publisher, distributor, etc. But I thought these instructions were there because of the agnostic nature of RDA: so that it can be used with system that do not do what 264 does (like card catalogs).

  5. Robert Bratton says:

    I see Bob’s point, that it is hard to imagine a content standard for bibliographic data that wouldn’t have defined data elements for publisher, producer, distributor, etc. However, I think Dominique is right, that these instructions are there because RDA is supposed to be content standard agnostic.

    I don’t object to this proposal, but I wonder if it begs the question — does this stipulation need to be in every instruction where you’re supplying information from outside the resource?

    I also wondered if the Optional addition instruction at the end of RDA 1.4 has any bearing here:

    —-
    When adding data within an element listed at 1.4 RDA [traditionally transcribed information], 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.

    When information is supplied in an element listed at 1.4 RDA, record the supplied information in the most appropriate language and script.
    —-

  6. Steve Kelley says:

    Like Robert Bratton, I don’t object to this proposal, but wonder if we need to add this stipulation to every instruction where you’re supplying info from outside the resource. It does seem we should be consistent here.

  7. Tracey L. Snyder says:

    In 1.4, I’m not sure I understand the difference between “adding data within an element listed at 1.4” and “[supplying information] in an element listed at 1.4.” As for tradition in supplying a clarification of role in a SOR in the language of the resource, I’m not sure this is a great idea anyway. Doesn’t it seem a little dangerous for speakers of one language to be putting words in the publisher’s mouth in another language? Anyway, I support the intent of the proposal, and I would like to either add 2.4.1.7 (and any other elements that may be appropriate) to the list, or improve 1.4. Or both.

    • Kathy Glennan says:

      I’m as confused as Tracey about the differences between those two paragraphs in 1.4. Can anyone identify which AACR2 rule might have prompted this?

      I can’t seem to find anything specific in AACR2 about supplying information in the language/script of the resource. However, it would be really odd to supply “[collected by]” in a SoR if the rest of the title & SoR was only in Chinese.

      Is there some middle ground here?

      • Kathy Glennan says:

        OK, after a bit more thought…

        1st paragraph in question at 1.4, using my own phrasing:
        If your resource presents something to record in one of the elements listed above, and you need to add something more, use the language/script of the resource, unless there are specific instructions for that element that tell you otherwise.

        2nd paragraph in question at 1.4, using my own phrasing:
        If you want/need to record an element from the list above, and there’s nothing in the resource about that element, then supply the element, using the most appropriate language/script.

  8. Kathy Glennan says:

    Note the final paragraph at 1.4 (before the final exception): Record all other elements (including notes) in a language and script, or languages and scripts, preferred by the agency creating the data.

    So, 2.4.1.7 is not affected by 1.4 (it’s not one of the elements listed). Therefore data recorded based on that instruction can be in the language/script preferred by the cataloging agency.

    Based on this analysis, the ALA response should not mention 2.4.1.7.

  9. Kathy Glennan says:

    However, Producer’s name (2.7.4), Publisher’s name (2.8.4), Distributor’s name (2.9.4), and Manufacturer’s name (2.10.4) are on the list in 1.4.

    Currently, the instructions in 1.4 apply to elements supplied in 2.7.4.4, 2.8.4.4, 2.9.4.4 & 2.10.4.4 — this is what CCC wants changed, and this should be the focus of the ALA Response.

    • Dominique Bourassa says:

      Kathy, I am so sorry, but I still don’t understand how you consider 2.4.1.7 different from 2.7.4.4, 2.8.4.4, 2.9.4.4 and 2.10.4.

      You said that 2.4.1.7 is not an element listed. But statement of responsibility is on the list at 1.4, just like publisher’s name, etc. I agree that “clarification of role” of the statement of responsibility is not on the list. But “statement of function” of the publisher, distributor, etc. is not on the list either.

      2.4.1.7 is about clarifying the function of the statement of responsibility. To me that is similar/parallel/equal to adding a term indicating the function of the publisher, distributor, etc. And therefore should be treated in a similar manner.

  10. Adolfo Tarango says:

    Perhaps my view is biased by working with parallel language records in OCLC, but when viewing all those parallel records, it makes sense to me to see “recorded” information in the language of the cataloging agency. I support the proposal as written.

  11. Kathy Glennan says:

    So, stepping back to look more closely at the question of how to apply 2.4.1.7, I think that the current instruction applies from 1.4 — and I actually think we’re all in agreement about what RDA tells you to do right now:

    When adding data within an element listed at 1.4, 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.

    The suggestion has been made above (by several of you) that the CCC proposal to add “in a language or script preferred by the agency preparing the description” should be extended to the instructions for clarification of role.

    Here are some [sort-of-made-up] examples of what that might look like (I think!):

    Russlan und Ludmila : Oper in 5 Aufzügen /Mikhail I. Glinka ; [edited by] M. Balakirew und S. Liapunow ; Text nach A. Puschkin ; [German translation by] L. Esbeer.

    Sueño de una noche de verano / William Shakespeare ; [translated and adapted by] Alan Pauls.

    And you likely would not have the following, at least not consistently:
    Sensō to heiwa / Torusutoi [gencho] ; Yonekawa Masao hen.
    戰爭と平和 / トルストイ[原著] ; 米川正夫編.

    A change to this instruction, then would emphasize flexibility (with the goal of providing clarifications in the language of the catalog user) over consistent descriptions provided by different cataloging agencies.

    Which do you prefer?

  12. John Myers says:

    It’s too late in the evening and too close to vacation for me to have a preference at this point. As the initiator of the 2.4.1.7 can of worms, I do not object to a response that supports the CCC proposal as written, without mention of 2.4.1.7. The diversity of opinions expressed here may be the very reason that the CCC proposal restricted itself to the 2.X.4.4 elements. It might be worth mentioning in our response that the proposal occasioned a lively discussion about 2.4.1.7, but I will not be adamant in advancing that suggestion — I defer to Kathy’s judgment about the dynamics of the JSC and its heavy workload at the upcoming meeting.

Leave a Reply