Discussion paper by CCC: Internationalization and RDA Appendix A Capitalization: Discussion Paper

6JSC/CCC/Discussion/1
July 30, 2014

Internationalization and RDA Appendix A Capitalization: Discussion Paper

Canadian Committee on Cataloguing (CCC)
—————————————————-

6JSC/CCC/Discussion/1/ALA response  Internationalization and RDA Appendix A Capitalization: Discussion Paper  (September 9, 2014)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Discussion paper by CCC: Internationalization and RDA Appendix A Capitalization: Discussion Paper

  1. John Myers says:

    I think the CCC has presented well argued points, leading me to conclude that Appendix A needs to be 1) more responsive and flexible, and 2) needs to better accommodate the “unofficial” languages of RDA. CCC’s recommendations seem reasonable and I commend them for offering to take the lead on pursuing development of them (pending JSC’s conceptual approval).

  2. Dominique Bourassa says:

    I totally agree with CCC that “This view of other languages [in Appendix A] as exceptions is not particularly friendly to the international adoption of RDA” I think RDA needs to become more flexible.

    It is a bit difficult to imagine how suggestions 1a) and 1b) would work.

    In 1a), do they mean that each language would be filled by the appropriate cataloging agencies and become as developed as the one for English? This might lead to a humongous appendix. If so, should most of this information be moved out of Appendix A to the Tools tab as a well-developed language tool?

    Would 1b) lead to extreme variations in practice?

    Could it be possible to allow appendix A to be flexible to the point that the language of the cataloging agency (French for example) would take the place of the English sections (A.10-A.30). English then would become an exception for these agencies and be moved where it would belong in the list of other languages? I realize that might be difficult and might require renumbering of languages in A.33 to A.39.

    A final thought: even though English is the official language of RDA, I hope the JSC allows CCC to continue their work to help internationalize RDA.

  3. Steve Kelley says:

    I agree with the general thrust of the paper, and would like to see CCC work to develop these ideas.

  4. Larisa Walsh says:

    As someone who works primarily with non-English materials I wholeheartedly support the proposal. It would be nice to have a common template for each language, but I have the same concern as Dominique – it might result in a very lengthy Appendix. Plus different languages might present different issues (for example, capitalization of nouns in German), so it seems that the template might have some variations depending on the language anyway.
    There are common capitalization rules related to groups of languages, like Scandinavian, Romance and Slavic, and I think it makes sense to keep separate chapters for those instead of having repeat the same instructions for each language separately.
    I applaud the CCC intention to carry out the revision of the Appendix A.

  5. Kathy Glennan says:

    It has previously been proposed to the JSC (several times, starting in 2006), that Appendix A should just be removed, primarily because capitalization practice does not affect the FRBR/FRAD user tasks. Presumably this appendix could be replaced with application guidelines for capitalization by each language community, “cataloguing agency”, etc.

    Should an approach referencing an external list be created, something along the lines of 6JSC/LC/31, for names of books of the Bible?

Leave a Reply