Proposal: Major and minor title changes for serials in languages which do not divide text into words: proposal for new wording and instructions

Tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Proposal: Major and minor title changes for serials in languages which do not divide text into words: proposal for new wording and instructions

  1. Kathy Glennan says:

    Note that this is actually a discussion paper; the instruction numbers in 6JSC/ISSN/4 are not RDA numbers.

    • Dominique Bourassa says:

      Comment from Charles Riley, Yale University, Chair CC:AAM:

      Despite Kathy’s comment that the instruction numbers are not RDA numbers, there is one RDA instruction that is cited, but it gives the incorrect instruction number. Instead of RDA 2.3.2.13.1.i, it should be RDA 2.3.2.13.1.a.

  2. Robert L. Maxwell says:

    Question no. 1. Under “minor changes” does “component” mean “character” (e.g. for Chinese?) The word isn’t defined anywhere.

    Question no. 2. I realize they are trying to write an instruction that means everyone can keep doing what they’re already doing, and if so it seems to work. But I do wonder–is there something so fundamentally different about titles in languages that divide texts into words and titles in those that do not that there is a need to consider a change toward the beginning of the former to be a major change, but not in the latter kind of titles? At least that seems to be the gist of the “For languages and scripts that do not divide text into words” instruction. If it’s not necessary for those languages to consider changes toward the beginning of the title to be major, why is it necessary for languages such as English that do divide text into words? The script a title is written in seems a somewhat arbitrary thing to base a major difference in practice on.

    Bob, SAC

  3. Kathy Glennan says:

    Comments from Audrey Chen, Chinese Cataloger at the University of Maryland:

    1. It would be useful to provide subsections in the “minor changes” section for languages and scripts that divide text into words and those that do not, to follow the pattern proposed for “major changes”.

    2. “components of the title” needs to be better defined; examples would help with understanding (for example in 2.4.1.h).

  4. Yoko Kudo says:

    Seems like the proposed subsection is built on the option 2 in 6JSC/ISSN/2. Since CEAL recommended the option 2 back then, I don’t think they will strongly oppose to this proposal. However, ISSN hasn’t provided the test results to confirm that the change does not increase the number of occasions that need new descriptions, which they promised to do. CEAL might comment on that because that was one of their concerns when they reviewed the previous discussion paper. Also I wonder if there is a mistake on the example on p. 5. 報告集–>報告書 makes sense because they indicate types of resources, but 研究 and 研修 have different meanings. I will defer more thorough review to CEAL and CORMOSEA.

  5. Yoko Kudo says:

    Comments from Jia Xu, CC:AAM East Asia Specialist

    1. Over all, I agree on the proposed modifications (highlighted in yellow) and the wording of the modifications.
    2. Providing examples for the all the rules would be very helpful for understanding and applying the rules.
    3. Testing and demonstrating test results as evidence of rule applicability would be fully convincing.
    4. Is harmonizing RDA 2.3.2.13.1 with the ISSN 2.3.1 under consideration, or as a future step of change, if this proposal is approved?

  6. Adolfo Tarango says:

    Comments from Mavis B. Molto, Continuing Resources Cataloging Committee member, Serials Cataloger, Utah State University:

    1. Sub-points do not correspond: Rule 2.3.1.2 has only one bullet point, whereas rule 2.3.1.1 has three sub-points. Is there a reason for this?
    a. The one sub-point under rule 2.3.1.2 recognizes changes in any part of the title that represent a change in meaning or a different subject matter, whereas sub-point (a) under rule 2.3.1.1 treats a change in the first five words in its own right (whether or not there is a change in meaning or a different subject matter) and sub-point (b) requires that changes after the first five words represent a change in meaning or a different subject matter.
    b. Sub-point (c) under rule 2.3.1.1 (regarding corporate body changes in the title proper) does not have a matching sub-point under rule 2.3.1.2.

    2. Broader issue: How is the following phrase to be interpreted, in both rule 2.3.1.1 and 2.3.1.2?

    “changes the meaning of the title or indicates a different subject matter”
    [Note: “title proper” rather than “title” is used in rule 2.3.1.1]

    a. Is the goal to only identify changes in the meaning of the title, or to also consider changes in the actual content of the publication?
    b. A title may change but the underlying content of the publication may not have changed. For example, a title change may be made to shorten the title, with no corresponding change occurring in the content of the publication.

  7. Adolfo Tarango says:

    I’m generally inclined to support the direction of this discussion paper as it doesn’t appear to be create conflict with current practice, but lacking the language expertise, that’s as much as I can evaluate.

    Addressing Bob’s question #2 in part, I don’t read the instructions as saying don’t consider a change at the beginning of a title as a major change (provided it doesn’t qualify as a minor change), instead, its that changes occurring at the end of the title can constitute a major change. However, Bob’s basic question remains, is their something fundamental about language/scripts that don’t divide text into words that changes occurring at the “end” of the title need to be considered. Speculating as to why for languages/scripts that do divide text into words, yes considering changes in the first five (or six) words only is arbitrary, but it in part comes from simple practical question of how far down do you go in a lengthy title, e.g. “Journal of the Big Bad Wolf that ate Little Red Riding Hood and her Grandma and got the axe from the Woodsman” changing to “Journal of the Big Bad Wolf that ate Little Red Riding Hood and her Grandma.”

  8. Robert Rendall says:

    Comments received from the Committee on Technical Processing and its Subcommittee on RDA of the Council on East Asian Libraries:

    CEAL response to 6JSC/ISSN/4 (September 12, 2014)

    Members of the Committee on Technical Processing (CTP) and the subcommittee on RDA of CTP of the Council on East Asian Libraries (CEAL) discussed the ISSN’s major and minor title changes for serials in languages which do not divide text into words: proposal for new wordings and instructions. And the whole CEAL membership was invited for feedback/comments.

    I. Assessment

    CEAL generally supports the ISSN’s discussion paper with some concerns. We want to point out a few problem areas with some suggestions. The Paper accommodated CEAL’s request to remove any reference to counting and examine changes anywhere in the title proper. Examining the original script also eliminates the problem created from the transliteration process. Creating the new subsection to fit the rule for Chinese and Japanese, which do not divide text into words, is helpful to apply. However, we think there is a room to refine the new rule (see II.1). And there are some concerns that Korean is not specifically mentioned with Chinese and Japanese to follow the new rule (see III.1).

    II. Areas to be improved

    1. 2.3.1.2 For languages and scripts that do not divide text into words

    This new section with one bullet needs to be more elaborate in terms of the definition of the word ‘component’ and how to apply the part “changes the meaning of the title”. It will be helpful for easy understanding if there is clear definition and examples. It leaves so much room for individual cataloger’s interpretation, part of it due to the nature of cataloging work. If we just judge whether the meaning of the whole title proper has changed or not (liberal approach), it may reduce the necessity of creating new records. But if the examination for title change is the word level, then it may end up producing about the same number of new records as when we apply the current practice. But it may create less room for discrepancy from the different interpretation.

    For example, a Japanese title changed the word ‘文化財‘ to ‘歴史遺産 ‘ as in ’京都橘大学文化財調査報告’ and ’京都橘大学歴史遺産調査報告.’

    With the new ISSN proposal, there is a room for discrepancy between major and minor title change by different catalogers. If one takes a liberal approach– which looks at whether the overall meaning of the title proper has changed or not– these are just different words for the same thing, so it’s a minor change. However, with the conservative/strict approach, which examines each word, these can be a major title change.

    The second example is adding the word ‘調査‘ as in ’区政モニターアンケート調査報告書.’ With or without the word, the meaning of the whole title proper does not change much by the liberal approach. But with conservative/strict approach, by examining each word, it may be a major title change.

    The National Diet Library, the officially-designated ISSN national centre for Japan, decided in May 2014 that these two title changes were major title changes.

    001 025427529
    003 JTNDL
    005 20140523120346.0
    008 140512c20149999ja ar p | |0jpn
    040 |a JTNDL |b jpn |c JTNDL |e ncr/1987
    245 00 |6 880-01 |a 京都橘大学歴史遺産調査報告 = |b
    Kyoto Tachibana University historical heritage
    research report.
    780 00 |w 000009435078 |t 京都橘大学文化財調査報告 =
    880 00 |6 245-01/(B |a Kyoto tachibana daigaku rekishi
    isan chosa hokoku = |b Kyoto Tachibana U
    niversity historical heritage research report.

    001 025433831
    003 JTNDL
    005 20140527174111.0
    008 140515c20149999ja uu p l| |0jpn
    040 |a JTNDL |b jpn |c JTNDL |e ncr/1987
    005 20140527174111.0
    245 00 |6 880-01 |a 区政モニターアンケート調査報告書.
    780 00 |w 000000085646 |t 区政モニターアンケート報告書.
    880 00 |6 245-01/(B |a Kusei monita anketo chosa
    hokokusho.

    The Chinese examples below show records from National Library of China (NLC) which is the official ISSN China Center. They were created based on the decision of the major title change, even though the subject matter did not change at all (650 fields remain same)

    i. 测绘信息与工程 (1007-3817) -> 测绘地理信息 (2095-6045)
    ii. 中国科技史料 (1000-0798) -> 中国科技史杂志 (1673-1441)

    These examples demonstrate that the rule is not easy to follow due to the possibility of different interpretation.

    If the new rule is meant to align with the current practice of NDL, NLC or other ISSN centers in East Asian countries, the rule needs to be refined to achieve less confusion and more consistency.

    Suggestions

    The following instruction may be easier to follow in the practical sense if the part “… that changes the meaning of the title or indicates a different subject matter” is removed.

    Then the 2.3.1.2 would be changed

    from:

    The following are to be considered major changes (exceptions are listed in 2.4.1)
    • An addition, deletion, change or reordering of any component of the title proper that changes the meaning of the title or indicates a different subject matter.

    to:

    The following are to be considered major changes (exceptions are listed in 2.4.1)
    • An addition, deletion, change or reordering of any component (that has significant lexical meaning, but not function elements) of the title proper occurs.

    Omitting the phrase “that changes the meaning of the title or indicates a different subject matter” will remove unnecessary judgment calls and avoid discrepancy engendered from different interpretations. Then we will create new records if any addition, deletion, change or reordering occurs to any component (provided it is not fall under the minor category).

    If this suggestion is accommodated, 2.4.1 d) also should be changed like “ … , provided that there is no addition, deletion, or change of any component of title proper (that has significant lexical meaning).”

    2. Typos and problem with examples in 2.4.1 K) under minor changes

    i. 1. Background, 1st sentence: RDA 2.3.2.13.1.i should be RDA 2.3.2.13.1

    ii. 2.4.1.k example
    The changes in the first component ” 硏究” (research) and “硏修” (training) would be considered a major change. Therefore, if this example is replaced by 硏修實施槪況報告 -> 硏修實施槪況報告集 or other distinctive example, it would be more helpful.

    III. Requests

    1. Korean language issue

    Korean language belongs to the languages and scripts that divide text into words in 2.3.1.1.

    However, the CEAL community would like to request that the new rule be applied to Korean language materials as well. The reasons are as follows: 1. The current practice of the ISSN Korea Center is to examine the whole title proper, rather than applying the first five-word rule, 2. Grammatical concepts are different from Indo-European languages (e.g., no articles), 3. Applying the word “function elements” in 2.4.1,’ d’ is more appropriate for Korean language, 4. The examples in 2.4.1 ‘a’ and ‘b’ also apply to Korean language.

    With the reasons above and reflecting the ISSN Korea Center’s current practice, it would be more beneficial if the new rule also applies to Korean language.

    2. Harmonization issue

    The CEAL response to 6JSC/ISSN/2 in 2012 included the harmonization of source and choice of title proper as one of the additional comments. CEAL members strongly feel that harmonization should be accomplished before changes to ISSN rules are implemented.

  9. Kathy Glennan says:

    Comments from Charlene Chou, Head of Technical Services of East Asia Library University of Washington

    1. Comments on the DP
    a. Possible typos in DP:
    i. I. Background, 1st sentence: RDA 2.3.2.13.1.i should be RDA 2.3.2.13.1 or RDA 2.3.2.13.1, a-b. There is no RDA 2.3.2.13.1.i.
    ii. LC-PCC PS for 2.3.2.13.2, i) clarifies category i) RDA: “The change from one word to another (e.g., the change from “magazine” to “journal”) is a major change.” Does 2.4.1.k example mean a “major” change?

    b. Clarification needed:
    i. 2.3.1.2: Linguistically speaking, how does ISSN define “languages and scripts that do not divide into words”?
    ii. 2.3.1.2: A different subject matter:
    1. If any change for similar subject terms, can it be treated as a minor change?
    2. How strictly a different subject matter would be defined? If a change is just adding a minor subject term, but the primary subject heading remains the same. Shall we treat it as a major change?
    iii. 2.4.1.c): do CJK titles involved with any change in singular or plural form at all? I could not think of any Chinese serial title in this category. Please feel free to correct me if wrong.
    iv. 2.4.1.d): do CJK titles involved with any change in “articles”? I cannot think of any Chinese article at all. Please feel free to correct me if wrong.
    v. 2.4.1.e): If the abbreviation remains the same but the formal name is changed, is it a major change instead?
    vi. 2.4.1.i): if a pattern changes later on, will it be considered as a major change?

    c. Suggestion: More examples and categories need to be examined for minor changes, so it’s easier to discern between major and minor changes in some situations, esp. specific categories for CJT languages.

    2. Chinese examples
    a. The subject matter does not change at all (650 fields)
    i. 测绘信息与工程 (1007-3817; OCLC#44891946)  测绘地理信息 (2095-6045 in CALIS/NLC; OCLC#863631530) in 2012
    ii. 电视电影纵览 (OCLC# 85815002)  电影频道出品电影纵览 (OCLC# 871443424) in 2013

    b. The subject matter does change slightly but main subject headings remain the same (650 fields): 民族學報 (1024-8250; OCLC# 30448411) 民族學界 (OCLC# 855545454)

    3. Footnotes
    After AACR2 chapter 12 was revised for serials in 2002, the CCM module 16 was heavily updated for major/minor changes. Most catalogers welcomed this change due to reducing the creation of new records; however, some serials catalogers have seen more inconsistencies in the decision of major or minor changes in OCLC, even with some CONSER records for CJK titles. It is indeed a complex issue, so more research may need to be done for more specific instructions, guidelines and best practices in the CEAL community.

Leave a Reply