Core CC:DA Public Space

Portraits of three Core members with caption Become a Member: Find Your Home: Core.

 

  • 1.  Comments requested: RSC/ORDAC/2024/1

    Posted Mar 05, 2024 11:05 AM

    Hi folks:

    ORDAC (The Oceania RDA Committee) has submitted a proposal dealing with names which incorporate two different languages, but are not parallel. They propose to add an instruction allowing for names incorporating two separate languages to be entered as one string. Please see the paper here:  http://rda-rsc.org/sites/all/files/RSC_ORDAC_2024-1.pdf

     This one seems pretty straightforward. If you have comments or suggestions, please post them here before March 14. As usual there is a short turn around time and NARDAC would like a CC:DA response by March 15, Thanks.

    aks



    ------------------------------
    Amanda Sprochi
    Cataloger/Data Wrangler
    60 Ellis Library
    University of Missouri
    520 S 9th St.
    Columbia, MO 65211
    sprochia@missouri.edu
    573/882-0461
    She/Her/Hers

    The University of Missouri occupies the traditional land of the Osage, Kiikaapoi, Peoria, and Očhéthi Šakówiŋ peoples.
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Comments requested: RSC/ORDAC/2024/1

    Posted Mar 05, 2024 03:55 PM

    I support this concept, but I have some suggestions about wording and placement. 

    First, I note that "single string" is currently used nowhere in base RDA, and I wonder if it is truly needed to convey this concept. If it is needed, are there other places in RDA which would benefit from its inclusion? My inclination is that this phrase is not needed, and that my suggested rephrasing, along with examples and/or policy statements will help with the application of these instructions. 

    Recommendation 1

    For the placement within Names of corporate body in two or more languages, I see that ORDAC has suggested that this addition come first. I wonder if it would be better second, since the current first condition/condition option setup is more common. 

    I also wonder if two condition sentences are needed to more clearly convey this concept. I'm not confident that my suggestion below is quite in conformance with RDA terminology, but here it is anyway, along with my suggested rephrasing of the CONDITION OPTION (which could also be tweaked):

    CONDITION

    A value of a name appears in two or more languages in manifestations. [As ORDAC suggests.]

    A corporate body has a dual-language name. [New, based on terminology in RSC/ORDAC/2024/1]

    CONDITION OPTION

    Record a value as it appears in manifestations. [Rephrased to remove "single string" and to reference "manifestations" as with the condition above.]

    Recommendation 2

    ORDAC's proposal is less clear about where this new Condition Option appears, although I believe it would be last in the existing list, as follows: 

    [existing]

    CONDITION

    A name of place is in two or more languages.

    CONDITION OPTION

    Record (in this order of preference):

      1. the form of the name in a language preferred by the agent who creates the metadata, if there is one in general use
      2. the form of the name in the official language of the government of the jurisdiction in which the place is located.

    [add ORDAC's text here - from their proposal]

    CONDITION OPTION

    Record a value as a single string as it appears on the source of information.

    Again, I think this might benefit from a separate CONDITION/CONDITION OPTION that identifies this special case. My suggestion would keep the existing first Condition/Condition option (as replicated above) and then add the following new text, which mirrors what I suggested for Recommendation 1:

    CONDITION

    A name of place is in two or more languages. [As ORDAC suggests.]

    A name of place has a dual-language name. [New, but I hope someone will come up with improved phrasing!]

    CONDITION OPTION

    Record the form of name as it appears in sources of information. [Wording differences from my suggestions for Recommendation 1 are driven by terminology use in the Preferred name of place element.]



    ------------------------------
    Kathy Glennan
    Director, Cataloging & Metadata Services
    University of Maryland Libraries
    she/her/hers
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 3.  RE: Comments requested: RSC/ORDAC/2024/1

    Posted Mar 07, 2024 02:21 PM
    I concur with Kathy's suggestions as improved structuring and text for the remedy being sought. There may be some further refinements needed to parse out the distinction and separation from the other Condition combinations, which tend to be formulated in terms of choosing a single language choice in deference to preferred languages by the cataloging agency or the corporate body. It is very easy to understand why ORDAC incorporated the unifying concept of "single string" to emphasize the different approach here to provide a unified dual-language entry over the language-specific choice of entry. There may be further particulars with respect to Condition combinations under Preferred Name of Place, which has a more complex mix of situations and corresponding Condition combinations. But directionally, Kathy's suggestions feel appropriate and an improvement over the original proposal.

    John Myers, Catalog & Metadata Librarian
    CC:DA Liaison to MAC
    Schaffer Library, Union College
    Schenectady NY 12308

    518-388-6623
    pronouns: he/him/his



    Original Message


  • 4.  RE: Comments requested: RSC/ORDAC/2024/1

    Posted Mar 14, 2024 09:09 AM

    Hi there,

    I have received no comments from the Metadata Interest Group constituency, but agree with Kathy and John's comments and support the proposal.



    ------------------------------
    Timothy Ryan Mendenhall (he/him)
    Metadata Librarian, Columbia University
    CORE Metadata Interest Group Liaison to CC:DA
    trm2151@columbia.edu
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 5.  RE: Comments requested: RSC/ORDAC/2024/1

    Posted Mar 14, 2024 10:01 AM

    The Content Standards Subcommittee of Music Library Association agrees with Kathy and John's comments but otherwise supports the proposal.

    Chelsea Hoover

    Catalog Librarian of Music, Syracuse University

    Music Library Association Representative to CC:DA



    ------------------------------
    Chelsea Hoover
    Syracuse University Libraries
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 6.  RE: Comments requested: RSC/ORDAC/2024/1

    Posted Mar 14, 2024 09:56 AM

    I have received no comments from AALL (American Association of Law Libraries). I agree with the comment that this  "single string" concept should be considered for further usage throughout RDA or rephrased.



    ------------------------------
    Ryan Tamares
    Senior Cataloging Librarian
    Robert Crown Law Library
    rtamares@law.stanford.edu
    He/Him/His
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 7.  RE: Comments requested: RSC/ORDAC/2024/1

    Posted Mar 14, 2024 02:40 PM

    I support the inclusion of guidance on this issue, particularly in the need to clarify it from other situations where the corporate name includes two or more languages. I don't have additional comments on the text of this proposal.

    As an aside - I'd also note that the design of the Toolkit itself might be adding confusion because while it's clear for the contents at the top of preferred name of corporate body description  that Names of corporate body in two or more languages  is not a category under Different names or forms of name for the same corporate body when you're scrolling through the condition/option sets, you can't easily tell that you're in a new category of conditions. It's particularly confusing when the conditions provided are when a corporate body has two or more names, each of which is in a particular language. Given that I would support the order proposed by ORDAC.



    ------------------------------
    Jeanette Norris
    Manager, Monographic Latin Script Cataloging Unit
    Yale University Library
    She/Her/Hers
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 8.  RE: Comments requested: RSC/ORDAC/2024/1

    Posted Mar 14, 2024 03:19 PM

    I have a lot of comments about this proposal. I am not sure if this will make it better or worse, but I am going to send them as separate replies in the hope that they will be more digestible.  I note that New Zealand already has policy statements at Place: preferred name of place that address this issue. This is the first NLNZ PS, which is attached to  https://access.rdatoolkit.org/en-US_ala-513b9b29-2696-3a43-b3c5-a1033d40b114/0a29b255-4eb8-4646-adb7-49fb7fa06939: For New Zealand place names use the form found in the New Zealand Gazetteer. This is the URL for that gazetteer: https://gazetteer.linz.govt.nz/. If you search a place that has a dual name, it appears that way in the gazetteer. See https://gazetteer.linz.govt.nz/place/7427 for "Riverton/Aparima" which has NAR  https://lccn.loc.gov/no2009055237.

    Unfortunately, there is no distinction made in RDA about when you have different language names appearing in different sources or when you have one name that appears in two or more languages. Furthermore, the CONDITION under Language does not even mention source of information: "A name of place is in two or more languages." Rather than solving the instruction hierarchy problem at 16.2.2 in original RDA, new RDA carried it over, meaning that the instruction "Two or more names appear in sources" appears at the same level as "Language" and there is not reference made from one to the other. 

    So this is my best attempt to solve the immediate problem at Place: preferred name of place...

    I would replace all those existing CONDITON/CONDITION OPTION instructions with these:

    Language

    CONDITION

    A value of a name appears in two or more languages in sources of information.

    A value of a name appears in a language or languages preferred by the agent that creates the metadata.

    CONDITION OPTION

                   Record a value in a language or languages preferred by the agent that creates the metadata.

    CONDITION

    A value of a name appears in two or more languages in sources of information.

    A value of a name does not appear in a language or languages preferred by the agent that creates the metadata.

    A value of a name appears in a script or scripts referred by the agent that creates the metadata.

    CONDITION OPTION

    Record a value in a language or languages that is the official language or languages of the government of the jurisdiction in which the place is located.

    CONDITION

    A value of a name appears in two or more languages in sources of information.

    A value of a name does not appear in a language or languages preferred by the agent that creates the metadata.

                  A value of a does not appear in a script or scripts that is preferred by an agent who creates the metadata.

    CONDITION OPTION

    Record a value of name by applying the instructions at Place: preferred name of place. Name of place in a non-preferred script.

    I believe this will solve the problem for New Zealand and Australia because the first condition/condition option par will apply. The key is that there is 1 name in 2 language rather than 2 names in 2 languages.



    ------------------------------
    Kate James (she/her/hers)
    OCLC · Program Coordinator- Metadata Engagement, Membership & Research Division
    6565 Kilgour Place, Dublin, Ohio, 43017 United States
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 9.  RE: Comments requested: RSC/ORDAC/2024/1

    Posted Mar 14, 2024 03:46 PM

    These are my comments for the proposed change to the Corporate Body: preferred name of corporate body instructions... The existing Condition/Condition Option pairs seem to address the situation the proposed change wants to cover even though it does not directly that situation. I note that an instruction about a value of Corporate Body: language of corporate body is not included in the proposed Condition even though 1) it would seem to apply to this situation and 2) it is a part of all the other CONDITIONs in this area, which might cause catalogers to ask WHY NOT HERE TOO? 

    I believe that the problem is the existing instructions assume that each value of name appears in only one language, which we know is not the case in the complicated world of corporate body names.  For example, "Louisiana Lagniappe Restaurant" could be considered a name with both French and English words or name of 3 English words, one of which (Lagniappe) has been Anglicized from French.  Bagatelle Bakery is a similar example. If my husband were in my cubicle right now, he could provide me with 20 other examples. That is not exactly ORDAC's situation, but it is close--the point is that you have 1 name involving multiple languages. Instead of doing what ORDAC suggests, I suggest a tweak to the 2nd CONDITON/CONDITION OPTION pair:

    CONDITION

    A value of a name appears in two or more languages in manifestations.

                  A corporate body has two or more values of Corporate Body: language of corporate body.

                   A value of Corporate Body: language of corporate body is a language or languages preferred by an agent who                  creates the metadata.

    CONDITION OPTION

    Record a value that is in a language or languages that is preferred by an agent who creates the metadata.

    Similar to my comments about preferred name of place,  I believe this solves ORDAC's problem because they have want is intended to be 1 name in multiple languages, both if which are preferred by the agent who create the metadata.



    ------------------------------
    Kate James (she/her/hers)
    OCLC · Program Coordinator- Metadata Engagement, Membership & Research Division
    6565 Kilgour Place, Dublin, Ohio, 43017 United States
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 10.  RE: Comments requested: RSC/ORDAC/2024/1

    Posted Mar 14, 2024 04:04 PM
    Edited by Kate James Mar 14, 2024 04:05 PM

    Now for my third and final reply addressing Jeanette's comment.  This is part of what Jeanette said, "I'd also note that the design of the Toolkit itself might be adding confusion because while it's clear for the contents at the top of preferred name of corporate body description  that Names of corporate body in two or more languages  is not a category under Different names or forms of name for the same corporate body when you're scrolling through the condition/option sets, you can't easily tell that you're in a new category of conditions. "

    If you look at the table of contents at the beginning of the element, you see that "Different names or forms of name for the same corporate body" are at the same level of hierarchy as "Names of corporate body in two or more languages":

     

    table of contents for preferred name of corporate body

     

    This is different than the hierarchy in the original Toolkit:

    table of contents for part of instructions on preferred name of corporate body
    I cannot provide any rationale for why this change was made or even say whether it was made deliberately. I agree that this is confusing, and the lack of references between those two areas makes it likely that catalogers will miss relevant instructions.  I do note that original RDA had the oddball of 11.2.2.12 when you had "Names Found in a Non-Preferred Script" that I think should have been under 11.2.2.5. Even if you only had 1 form of name and it was in a non-preferred script, when you take a name found in a non-preferred script and transliterate it, you now have different forms of the same name to choose from. The lack of reference from the instructions on names in multiple languages to the instruction "Name of corporate body in a non-preferred script" means a cataloger could easily miss that instruction.
    I apologize for sending these comments at the deadline. It is not because I was procrastinating.


    ------------------------------
    Kate James (she/her/hers)
    OCLC · Program Coordinator- Metadata Engagement, Membership & Research Division
    6565 Kilgour Place, Dublin, Ohio, 43017 United States
    ------------------------------

    Original Message