Thursday, April 30, 2015

Compilations, Selections, Translations in RDA & AACR2 & Cutter Numbers : Questions & Answers


How do you cutter a translation of a new collection of stories or poems by one author? How would you account for the collection title in the original language?

Under the new guidelines in RDA, many compilations of poems, stories, etc. by one author that used to be cuttered and treated as separate works according to the old LCRI 25.10 because the collection had a “distinctive” title are now given a conventional collective title and cuttered as collections or selections according to CSM F633. 

However, there isn’t an example in F633 which illustrates what to do with the original title proper of a translation of collected poems, stories, etc. if the original collection title was “distinctive”. In some cases, the collection in the original language wasn’t published long enough ago for it to have necessarily “become known” by that title (the original collection and translation may even be published in the same year). So, according to RDA 6.2.2.10, the translation of such a collection would be cuttered as a translation of selected works and have the conventional collective title in the 240. However, it seems like there should also be some way to trace the collection title proper in the original language. Would it be appropriate to trace it in an author-title added entry as in LCCN 2014007357?

Here’s an example:

The title “Lashing skies” by Madeleine Monette, is an English translation of the French collection of poems, “Ciel à outrances” (LCCN 2012493907)

Here’s another:

“Seasonal time change” is an English translation on LCCN 2013465420 “Umstellung der Zeit”

Should the preferred title for these translations be the conventional collective title, “Poems.‡k Selections.‡l English” and should you use the A2 cutter from Table P-PZ40, or, in cases like this in which the record for the collection in the original language has already been cataloged according to AACR2 rules, should you make an exception, use the original collection title as the preferred title, and cutter it as a translation of a separate work?

Question by Rachel F. (Librarian, United States) on RDA Blog


<<<<<---------->>>>>

Please find answer to above question from Janis L. Young , Policy and Standards Division, Library of Congress.  RDA Blog on behalf of all the users thanks Ms. Janis for her expert help....


<<<<<---------->>>>>


Dear Salman,

The policy on the classification of collections that are translations did not change significantly with the implementation of RDA.  The policy is just pertinent to more collections now, because of the prevalence of RDA conventional collective titles due to LC’s current interpretation of 6.2.2.10. 

Collections in the original language that are assigned conventional collective titles are classed in the “collected works” or “selected works” number.

Translated collections (or collections of translations) that are assigned conventional collective titles are classed in the “Translations (Collected or selected)” numbers.

Here’s a made-up example of a poet who writes in German, and whose latest poetry collection was translated into English.  Let’s assume the use of Table P-PZ40:


050 00 $a PT2702.E47 $b A6 [date]
100 1# $a Bergman, Heidi.
240 10 $a Poems. $k Selections
245 10 $a Frühling / $c Heidi Bergman.

050 00 $a PT2702.E47 $b A2 [date]
100 1# $a Bergman, Heidi.
240 10 $a Poems. $k Selections. $l English
245 10 $a Spring / $c Heidi Berman ; translated from the German by August Heier.

The collection in the original language and the collection in translation are not shelved together.

CSM F 633 sec. 1.a provides guidelines on the use of collected works, selected works, and translations. The Rainer Maria Rilke examples in sec. 3 are also pertinent.

As for cases in which the collection in the original language was cataloged under AACR2 and classified as a separate work, and now the translation is being assigned an RDA conventional collective title: the general practice is to class the translation according to the above rule. That is, class it with collected and selected translations, not with the original work.

All the best,

Janis L. Young
Policy and Standards Division
Library of Congress

See also:

Thanks all for your love, suggestions, testimonials, likes, +1, tweets and shares ....

See also related posts in following RDA Blog Categories (Labels):

Friday, April 24, 2015

RDA Rules Toolkit & LC-PCC PS Revision

RDA Toolkit Update, April 14, 2015 


A new release of the RDA Toolkit is published on Tuesday, April 14. This message will cover several points you should be aware of related to the release. 

TOPIC 1: Changes in RDA Content
TOPIC 2: Change in Content in LC-PCC PSs
TOPIC 3: Functional Changes in the RDA Toolkit

TOPIC 1: Changes in RDA Content

There are two types of changes in the RDA content for this update: 1) the fourth annual major update to RDA based on the decisions made by the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA (JSC) at their November 2014 meeting; and 2) “Fast Track” changes that are relatively minor and typical of a release update.

Revisions from JSC actions:
The changes to individual instructions are identifiable by the “revision history” icon in the RDA Toolkit (a dark blue rectangular icon with the date "2015/04").  A complete listing of all changes due to the proposal process will appear in the left-side table of contents pane on the RDA tab in the Toolkit, at the bottom under “RDA Update History”—you will see an additional entry there for the “2015 April Update.” 

The attached document (summary rda changes 2015.pdf) lists the main changes to RDA due to the JSC update.  Many of the changes in this update package are due to re-numbering of instructions and references (without a change in actual content) and are not included in the attached listing. 
To help you focus on the more important changes to the instructions, some parts of the attached summary have been highlighted in yellow to draw your attention.  Some noteworthy changes:

           
Statement of Responsibility (2.4, etc. and 2.17.3.5):  Instructions that distinguished between “statements of responsibility” (2.4) and statements indicating a “performer, narrator, and/or presenter” (7.23) or “artistic and/or technical credit” (7.24) have been removed.  While information formerly recorded in 7.23 and 7.24 are now considered statements of responsibility, the cataloger can judge whether that information is best transcribed as part of the statement of responsibility (e.g., MARC 245$c), or recorded as notes (e.g., MARC 508, 511). The core requirement to transcribe the first or most important statement of responsibility should be fulfilled before recording others in a note.

Noun Phrases Occurring with a Statement of Responsibility (2.4.1.8): The instruction to always treat a noun phrase occurring with a statement of responsibility as part of the statement of responsibility has been replaced with an instruction to treat a noun phrase occurring with a statement of responsibility as part of the statement of responsibility if 1) the sequence, layout, or typography indicates the phrase is intended to be part of the statement of responsibility and 2) the noun phrase is indicative of the role of the person named in the statement of responsibility.  Note this is not a return to the AACR2 practice, which included instructions about the role of the person, but said nothing about typography, layout, etc. In cases of doubt, treat the noun phrase as part of the statement of responsibility.

Distribution Statement (2.9), Manufacture Statement (2.10), and Copyright Date (2.11):  The “core if” requirements for the statements and sub-elements of “distribution statement,” “manufacture statement,” and “copyright date” have been eliminated. These elements may be recorded according to cataloger judgment.

Preferred Title for the Work (6.2.2, etc.):  There have been some significant structural changes to the layout and completion of RDA instructions for preferred titles for works, although few represent changes significant changes in LC practice.  There are significant changes in two areas:  choreographic works and books of the Bible known as the Protestant Apocrypha.  Although choreographic works were not directly covered in RDA, examples reflective of the former LCRI practice had been included; choreographic works are now treated as other works in RDA, and examples have been changed accordingly.  Those who deal with choreographic works (or, more likely, works about choreographic works) should examine the revised “Choreographic Works” section of the LC-PCC PS for 6.27.1.9.  The guidelines provide information on creating new authority records, guidance on dealing with existing authority records, and a link to the new subject practices that will be part of the Subject Headings Manual.  For the books of the Protestant Apocrypha, individual books are now to be named directly as a sub-division of the Bible (e.g. Bible. Baruch), the same as individual books of the Old and New Testaments.

Authorized Access Points Representing a Person (9.19.1, etc.): Several instructions in 9.19.1 have been revised to provide the cataloger greater flexibility in choosing an appropriate addition to break a conflict if the additions from 9.19.1.2 and 9.19.1.3 are not available or do not provide adequate distinction.  See the relevant LC-PCC PSs for the “optional addition” of these elements when there is no conflict.  

Fast Track changes
An attached PDF file identifies the "Fast Track" changes to RDA that will be included in this release (6JSC-Sec-15.pdf); Fast Track changes are not added to the RDA Update History.  While you are encouraged to peruse the changes, there are no significant changes.

TOPIC 2: Change in Content in LC-PCC PSs

A summary of LC-PCC PS updates incorporated in this release is attached (LCPCCPS_changes_2015_April.pdf).  Many of the changes to the LC-PCC PSs are related to RDA changes (re-numbering, new references, etc.).  Several PSs are being deleted because the content has been incorporated into RDA itself or the RDA update makes the PS obsolete.  As noted above, the LC-PCC PS for 6.27.1.9 should be reviewed by those who deal with choreographic works, and the PSs for 9.19.1.5, Option-9.19.1.8, Option should be reviewed by those who deal with personal name authority records.
The PSs on manuscripts and works of art have been revised and relocated to 6.2.2.6 because of RDA changes.

TOPIC 3: Functional Changes in the RDA Toolkit

There are two functional changes in the RDA Toolkit that you should be aware of:

a) For reasons associated with the international use of the RDA Toolkit, the names of the Books and Groups of Books of the Bible have been removed from the text of the instructions in Chapter 6, and are now available on the contents pane on the “Tools” tab (see “Books of the Bible”).  Other than the change for individual books of the Apocrypha listed above in Topic 1, there is no change in LC-PCC practice because we use the names of the books and groups of books that were previously listed in RDA as well as the title "Bible. Apocrypha" for that group of books.

b) The RDA index has been removed.  Although formerly made available in the online Toolkit, the index was produced only as a byproduct of the printed RDA; this has been discontinued as it was burdensome to maintain.  The online search features provide a reasonable replacement for the index; see the “Search Tips” in the RDA Toolkit on the “Help” screen for more information on searching.

The next planned release of the RDA Toolkit will be in August 2015.

The documents attached to this email may also be found on the Web:
LC Summary of 2015 RDA Updates: http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/added_docs.html   
Fast Track entries included in the April 2015 update of the RDA Toolkit: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-Sec-15.pdf
Changes in LC-PCC Policy Statements in the April 2015 release of the RDA Toolkithttp://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/lcps_access.html


[Source : Library of Congresss, Policy and Standards Division]

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Clarification of Role in Statement of Responsibility : RDA Rule 2.4.1.7 : Questions & Answers

Question on Clarification of Role in Statement of Responsibility : RDA Rule 2.4.1.7 by Omar Hernández Perez:


Hi
What language is add a word or short phrase if necessary to clarify the role of a person, family, or corporate body named in a statement of responsibility? RDA 2.4.1.7

1.  language/script of the resource 
2.  language of the agency 
Russlan und Ludmila : Oper in 5 Aufzügen /Mikhail I. Glinka ; [editado por] M. Balakirew und S. Liapunow
RESOURCE DESCRIPTION & ACCESS RDA


Answer: 
RDA 2.4.1.7 suggests to Add a word or short phrase if necessary to clarify the role of a person, family, or corporate body named in a statement of responsibility. Also it prescribes to indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the resource itself.

The Addition made should be in the language/script of resource in which title proper is given.


There is one RDA Rule 2.2.3.1 for "Preferred Sources of Information in Different Languages or Scripts" : If the resource contains preferred sources of information in more than one language or script, use as the preferred source of information (in this order of preference). Under this six points are mentioned from a-f in the order of preference. 
Under this the first option itself is: a) the source in the language or script that corresponds to the language or script of the content of the resource ... ...
This rule can be interpreted and applied to the asked question.



Note: RDA Blog users please evaluate this answer and express your opinions about this question/answer.

[Revised 2015-04-22]

Monday, April 20, 2015

Librarianship Studies & Information Technology (LS & IT) Blog

About Librarianship Studies & Information Technology (LS & IT) Blog 

Learn librarianship and information technology with Librarianship Studies & Information Technology (LS & IT) Blog, a blog on studies, research, techniques, technology, best practices, and latest news on librarianship, library and information science, and information technology. Whether you are studying, doing research, or a working professional, this is the place for you... For Librarians, i-School Master of Library and Information Science (MLIS) & Ph.D Students & Researchers and IT Professionals 

Librarianship Studies & Information Technology (LS & IT) Blog


Contents: 

INTRODUCTION TO LS & IT BLOG
LS & IT BLOG PAGES 
LS & IT BLOG SEARCH 
LS & IT BLOG SUBSCRIBE & FOLLOW 
LS & IT BLOG CATEGORIES (LABELS) 
LS & IT BLOG IN SOCIAL MEDIA 


LS & IT BLOG IN SOCIAL MEDIA


  • Join the companion online Google+ Community Librarianship Studies & Information Technology, a place where people can get together to share ideas, trade tips and tricks, and learn about Library & Information Science and Information Technology

  • Join the companion Facebook Group Librarianship Studies & Information Technology, a place where people can get together to share ideas, trade tips and tricks, and learn about Library & Information Science and Information Technology






#LIBRARIANSHIPSTUDIES #LIBRARY #LIBRARIES