Language and Script Instructions for Chapters 6 and 7 & Appendix

RSC/LC/2
1 August 2016

Language and Script Instructions for Chapters 6 and 7

RSC/LC/2/Appendix
Language and Script Instructions for Chapters 6 and 7. Appendix

 

Submitted by: Dave Reser, LC Representative

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Language and Script Instructions for Chapters 6 and 7 & Appendix

  1. Kathy Glennan says:

    Revision 1, 5.4

    Agree, with one comment/concern.

    While I don’t object to removing the term “identifying” before attributes in the 2nd paragraph, I think the same change needs to be made in the other 23 instructions in RDA that use the phrase “identifying attributes”.

  2. Kathy Glennan says:

    Revision 2, 6.11.1.3

    Agree.

  3. Kathy Glennan says:

    Revision 3, 6.15.1.5

    In the context of the current wording of RDA, I believe that “name” should be incorporated into this instruction. In addition, I think LC introduced an unintentional change to the 2nd sentence, which should remain the same.

    I recommend:
    “Record the name of the individual instrument or instruments. Use the following list of terms as a guide.”

    In the context of RSC/MusicWG/3, I don’t believe any paragraph relating to naming medium of performance in the language/script preferred by the cataloging agency will be necessary — the proposed revision to 5.4 should address that.
    However, this might not be the case if the proposed WG phrasing “whenever possible” is needed in the context of the medium of performance.
    If that’s true, should the “whenever possible” be incorporated into 5.4? Are there other chapter 6 & 7 elements where that caveat applies?

    • Diane Napert says:

      Kathy’s suggested wording here sounds good.

    • Robert L. Maxwell says:

      Agree with Revision 3. Kathy, why did you think “individual” needs to be added? It’s not in current 6.15.1.5.

      Why is the list even there? Wouldn’t “Select terms from a standard list of names of instruments, if available” and no list be more in keeping with the direction RDA is going?

      • Kathy Glennan says:

        It occurred to me once I tried to introduce the term “name”. The current instruction says “When recording names of instruments…” and the LC proposal says “Record the instrument or instruments.”

        It’s very clear from the context of the instruction, and the list of instrument names, that these are individual instruments (as opposed to ensembles).

        Alternatively, we could propose: “Record the name of the instrument or instruments.” — but that just read strangely to me.

        I suspect all of this is a moot point, in light of RSC/MusicWG/3. That’s where the list of instruments entirely disappears (to Bob’s point above). I don’t think that’s worth raising in the response to this paper, which has a different focus.

  4. Kathy Glennan says:

    Revision 4, 6.16.1.3.1

    OK, but it is a bit odd to have this exceptional treatment. I guess it’s there for two reasons:
    1) you need to mention recording the caption
    2) there’s the “satisfactory equivalent” language, which doesn’t appear anywhere else.

    • Robert L. Maxwell says:

      I don’t understand the need for the exceptional treatment. I guess this is fundamental to the instruction itself, but why do we want alternate treatments, anyway? With non-musical works we record the caption in the language in which it appears. 6.2.2.9.1 doesn’t give catalogers of other types of works the option of either recording the caption in the language or script in which it appears, OR translating it into the language and script preferred by the agency. Is there something about music that makes this necessary or is this another matter of “we’ve always done it that way”? In my opinion the alternative should be the instruction, and it could just say “Record the caption. Use abbreviations as instructed in appendix B …”

  5. Kathy Glennan says:

    Revision 5, 7.13.2.3

    Agree.

  6. Kathy Glennan says:

    Issues for further discussion

    6.8 & 6.13 – the reference to using 9.13 as a model raises the question about whether or not 9.13 really provides (sufficient) guidance about using a named group. There was a lengthy email thread about this on the PCCLIST in early July.

    7.9: agree that this may need further investigation as we move more to recording relationships rather than attributes.

    7.11: this is a thorny problem, since the recording studio is the really relevant information. (Abbey Road Studio Two is important; London alone would not suffice.) This again will be impacted by the move to recording relationships more than attributes.

  7. Kathy Glennan says:

    Appendix

    The table entry for 6.15 doesn’t match the actual proposal (it says to cover by the revision 5.4).

    The table entry for 6.16 also isn’t exactly correct about recommendations, since a minor revision is proposed in the actual proposal.

    The recommendation for 7.13.2 also doesn’t quite match the actual proposal.

  8. Teressa Keenan says:

    I generally agree with this proposal. I do have the same concerns as Kathy already mentioned above.

  9. Tina Shrader says:

    I support this proposal overall, and I think the questions Kathy raises need to be addressed in whatever final changes are made to RDA.

  10. Yoko Kudo says:

    I also agree with the proposal in general. I support the idea to make instructions less redundant. I haven’t heard any objections from CC:AAM, either.

Leave a Reply