Proposal: Revisions to instructions on Parts of the Bible (6.23.2.9.2–6.23.2.9.5 and 6.23.2.9.7)

Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Proposal: Revisions to instructions on Parts of the Bible (6.23.2.9.2–6.23.2.9.5 and 6.23.2.9.7)

  1. Kathy Glennan says:

    Comment from Mary L. Mastraccio, Director of Cataloging and Authorities, MARCIVE, Inc.

    I agree with the recommendations for word changes in this proposal.

    On p. 2, final paragraph, there’s a sentence that reads:

    Finally, there are instances of the word “name” in instructions where we are not sure what other word would be appropriate, like the title of 6.14.2.5 “Preferred Title Consisting Solely of the Name of One Type of Composition.”

    I recommend removing the phrase “of the Name” altogether: 6.14.2.5 “Preferred Title Consisting Solely of One Type of Composition.”

  2. John Myers says:

    This proposal renders significant improvements to the rules on the Bible on several fronts — it aligns the treatment of the Apocrypha with how the Testaments are treated and it improves the internationalization of the rules by easing the stranglehold of the Authorized Version on the formulation of preferred titles.

    Two observations that arise from the work of CC:DA’s former TF on the Bible:

    1) Change 3: Revisions to the Apocrypha — it is possible after removing the intervening “Apocrypha” from preferred titles to its books, that it then becomes merely another Group of Books under 6.23.2.9.3. There may be merit in retaining a specific rule to deal with it though, despite the Protestant-centric nature of such a rule, owing to the Apocrypha’s particular place in the history of the Bible canon.

    2) Change 5: Other selections from the Bible — this points to an odd sequence in the rules: Testaments, Books, Groups of Books, Apocrypha, Single selections, Multiple sections. Is there merit in resequencing the rules along hierarchical lines: Testaments, Apocrypha, Groups of Books, Books, etc.?

  3. Kathy Glennan says:

    6.23.2.9.2, new example explanations:

    I would prefer a slightly different wording for these examples.
    Currently: Preferred title record by an agency using the [name of Bible version]
    Proposed: Preferred title chosen from the [name of Bible version]

    Query: Does “Bible” belong in the example explanations? Would it be OK to just say “Authorized Version”, instead of “Authorized Version Bible”?

    Query: In the example explanations, when do you use “Bible” and when do you use “Version”? Are there times you should use both? I don’t know how critical this is, but it is confusing. I can see that the explanations are largely based on the NAF forms — but not exactly….

  4. Kathy Glennan says:

    6.23.2.9.2, final proposed paragraph:

    I would prefer to use “from” instead of “or”:

    For a selection or selections FROM an individual book of the Bible, see…

    (“selections from” is used 11 times in the RDA Toolkit; “selections of” is used once.)

  5. Kathy Glennan says:

    In 6.23.2.9.5.2:

    Instead of specifying the use of roman & arabic numerals, and then providing an alternative, would it be appropriate to simply have the “then” clause read: … then: add the chapter and verse. The punctuation instructions could then be relegated to policy statements.

    This approach would likely require more explanations for the choices made in the examples.

    Thoughts?

  6. Kathy Glennan says:

    In 6.23.2.9.7:

    Why is the new paragraph needed? Isn’t this situation already covered by the 1st paragraph? (note that the deleted paragraph is identical to the added final paragraph — the change noted here has to do with the examples).

    The problem with the new paragraph is that it does not indicate that “Selections” is a subdivision of a preferred title for the Bible Testament, chapter, section, etc. Instead it just says to record “Selections” as the preferred title. This isn’t what is meant, I’m sure.

    So, perhaps the whole instruction should be restructured a bit (basic outline, follows — without specific RDA wording at the moment):

    1st paragraph: For other selections (including miscellaneous extracts) apply the following instructions.

    2nd paragraph: pretty much as is

    3rd paragraph: If the specific title for the part is not applicable, record Bible.

    4th paragraph: after determining the most specific title that is appropriate for the selections, add the conventional collective title Selections.

    Thoughts?

  7. Robert L. Maxwell says:

    I fully agree with the change for Apocrypha. I don’t understand why it wasn’t done this way in the first edition of RDA. To make it crystal clear it would be good to add some Apocrypha examples to 6.23.2.9.2. Also, now that Apocrypha is treated the same way as other books in the Bible, I don’t think there is any longer need to talk in 6.23.9.2 about “a book of the Catholic or Protestant Canon”–is there? I always assumed that language was in there as a signal that books in the Apocrypha were treated differently, but they no longer will be if this revision is approved. (And if that wasn’t the reasoning, what about the Orthodox canon, which I understand is slightly different, or may be depending on the church, from the Catholic or Protestant canon.)

Leave a Reply