Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Outline
RDA Review Background information CEAL RDA Review Subcommittee
activities CEAL comments submitted to ALA Members of the CEAL RDA Review
Subcommittee
RDA Review Background Information
All the information regarding RDA is available at: http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/rda.html Dec. 2004-Mar. 2005, Draft of AACR3 Part
I reviewed by JSC constituencies. Apr. 2005, JSC decide to give a new
working title: “RDA: Resource Description and Access”
Dec. 2005, JSC made RDA available for public review
RDA Timeline Oct. 2005-April. 2006: Completion of
draft of part I, and constituency review May 2006-Sept. 2006: Completion of
draft of part II, and constituency review Oct. 2006-Apr. 2007: Completion of
draft of part III, and constituency review May 2007-Sept. 2007: Completion of
General Introduction, Appendices, and Glossary
2008: Publication
CC:AAM RDA Task Force Jul.-Oct. 2005, Task force was established
with Hideyuki Morimoto as chair 12 members representing Africa, East
Asia, Middle East, South Asia, and Southeast Asia regions.
Members representing East Asia region also come from CEAL:
Hideyuki Morimoto (Chair) Sarah Elman Taemin Park Keiko Suzuki (CC:AAM liaison to CC:DA)
CEAL Activities Nov. 14, 2005, CEAL Exec. Board was informed
that the JSC intends to make the Drafts of RDA publicly available on its Web site.
Dec. 5, Jennifer Bower, ALA rep. to JSC announced and confirmed that draft of RDA Part I will be available for comments from outside the constituencies.
Dec. 7, Mary Lin, Chair of CTP, informed CEAL Exec. Board that she will work with CTP members to send comments to JSC on behalf of CEAL. Shi Deng agreed to be the coordinator.
Dec. 12, RDA Part I draft made available for comments, and deadline was Feb. 7, 2006.
CEAL RDA Activities (cont’d)
Dec. 12 – Jan. 20, Shi worked with CTP members on getting input on CEAL RDA review guideline, process, and recruitment of the review committee members.
Jan. 5, Shi sent CEAL RDA review guidelines to CEAL members via Eastlib.
Feb. 7, the Committee submitted comments to ALA on behalf of CEAL.
Feb. 16, CEAL was invited to comment on LC proposal on internationalization of RDA Part I, because of the extensive comments that CEAL made on Feb. 7.
Mar. 3, the Committee submitted comments to ALA regarding LC proposal.
CEAL RDA Review Guidelines1. While it is recognized that not everyone who care to
comment would have time to review each draft Part in its entirety, many rules are related to each other (although some rules stand by themselves), so that reviewing only of some sections within each part, without regard to other sections, may not always result in coherent and relevant comments;
2. RDA is not proposed as a complete paradigm shift but as improvement, however drastic it might be, over AACR2 with adoption of recent models, such as FRBR, so that comments should be based on full understanding of (although not necessarily agreement with) past and current cataloging rules and practices in North America;
3. Some comments from CEAL members may exhibit marked disagreement from each other on some proposed rules within each draft RDA Part; and
4. Because of these three factors, CEAL will analyze and synthesize to the best of its ability comments from CEAL members, which may result in some comments conscientiously altered or even omitted in a finalized CEAL response for submission to CC:DA.
Highlights of CEAL Comments on RDA Part I drafts
3 major issues addressed: Does not adequately address
transcription of non-roman languages and scripts in transliterated form (Rule 1.5, etc.)
Does not clarify the confusion of transcription and transliteration of numerals in scripts (AACR2 C.5. Oriental numerals / RDA rule 1.6.2)
Lack examples in CJK and other non-roman languages and scripts
Highlights of CEAL Comments on RDA Part I drafts (cont’d)
Other issues addressed: Concern about effectiveness of
reviewing drafts when examples are behind the schedule
Concerns about using terms “oriental” and “vernacular” (RDA 1.6.2.3.)
Inadequate instruction in transcribing omitted or unreadable character/word (RDA 1.6.)
Highlights of CEAL Comments on RDA Part I drafts (cont’d)
Other issues addressed: Lack instruction on transcribing
multiple separated edition statements (RDA 2.5.1.)
Inadequate instruction/option in cataloging Chinese early printed resources Lack definition or scope on “early print” Lack option of using the Guidelines to
catalogue Chinese Early Printed Resources.
Two Proposals on numerals in Scripts (RDA 1.6.2. & 1.6.2.3)
Proposal 1: Incorporate current practice of AACR2 C.5, LCRI C.5, and CJK examples of AACR2 and LCRIs into one place with instructions on transcription and transliteration of numerals in scripts explicitly with distinction.
Proposal 2: Opposite current practice: transcribe in the form in which they appear on the source of information (pending on getting consensus response from CEAL community)Note: need to keep in mind on dealing with numerals in scripts within headings in Part III
Examples of These Two Proposals
Proposal 1
Original script:一九八九水墨畫創新展
Transliteration: 1989 shui mo hua chuang xin zhan
Variant access: Yi jiu ba jiu shui mo hua chuang xin zhan
Original scripts: 臺灣第一銀行史
Transliteration: Taiwan di 1 yin hang shi
Variant access: Taiwan di yi yin hang shi
Proposal 2
Original script:一九八九水墨畫創新展
Transliteration: Yi jiu ba jiu shui mo hua chuang xin zhan
Variant access: 1989 shui mo hua chuang xin zhan
Original scripts: 臺灣第一銀行史
Transliteration: Taiwan di yi yin hang shi
Variant access: Taiwan di 1 yin hang shi
LC Proposal on RDA Part I Internationalization
Goal of proposalTo make RDA open to use by any community with
a context other than English language, other than Latin script, other than Western-style arabic numerals, and/or other than Gregorian/Julian calendar.
Four aspects in RDA were reviewed1. English language. Instruction 0.1.8. (no
change)2. Language and script of the description.
Instruction 1.5. and related rules. (proposed revision)
3. Numerals/dates. Instructions 1.6.2, 1.6.2.1-1.6.2.3 and related rules. (proposed revision)
4. Calendar. Instructions 1.6. and 2.6.0.3, 2.9.0.3 (proposed revision)
Proposed revisions of 1.5 Revise the optional rule as “add or
substitute the data elements in a transliterated form.”
Replace “interpolations” with plain English word “adding” and instruction on supplying missing data, with a new optional rule for recording additions in the language and scripts preferred by the agency preparing the description
remove fourth bullet: completely suggest using “transliteration” in place of
“romanization”
Proposed revisions of 1.6.2.
Rule title change to: “Numbers expressed as words and numerals”
Remove “edition statement” and “statement relating to a named revision of an edition” from 2nd bullet to the 1st one as “any statement relating to edition”
Add optional rule under 2nd bullet: “add or substitute numerals in the script preferred by the agency preparing the description”
Proposed revisions of 1.6.2.1-1.6.2.2
1.6.2.1 Roman numerals and 1.6.2.2 Numbers expressed as words:
Both have changes by adding “Western-style” before “arabic numerals”
Both add optional rule that read: “add or substitute numerals in the script preferred by the agency preparing the description.”
Proposed revisions of 1.6.2.3
Rule title change to: Script of numerals New instruction being added: “Transcribe
numerals in the script in which they appear on the source of information.”
Modify the original instruction to an optional rule that would read: “when describing resources that present numerals in a script not used by the agency preparing the description, add or substitute the numerals in the script preferred by the agency preparing the description”
Remove terms “oriental” and “vernacular”
Highlights of CEAL comments on LC Proposal
Support LC Proposal with regard to “internationalization”
Concerns with potential inconsistent practice as consequence of flexibility of RDA optional rules
Suggest LC issue new RIs/Cataloging Decision to set direction in this regard
Suggest add CJK and other non-roman examples
CEAL RDA Review Subcommittee
Members:Ai-lin Yang (UC Berkeley)Cathy (Chwang Chia) Yang
(LC)Daphne Wang (U. Oregon)Dawn Lawson (NYU)Edwin Yu (U. Maryland &
CJKat)Evelyn Kuo (UC Berkeley)Iping K. Wei (Princeton)Wen-Ling D. Liu (Indiana)Nanako Kodaira (Duke) Shi Deng (UCSD,
Coordinator)Thomas Tsai (LC)Wayne Richter (W.
Washington)Young-ki Lee (LC)
Advisors: Abraham J. Yu (UC Irvine, CEAL
president)Beatrice Chang Ohta (LC)Hideyuki Morimoto (Columbia, Chair,
ALA/CC:AAM RDA Task Force)Philip A Melzer (LC, CEAL president-
elect)Sarah S. Elman (Yale, ALA/CC:AAM
RDA Task Force) Ex-OfficioMary Lin (Wisconsin-Madison, Chair,
CTP)
Comments Consolidation Dawn LawsonNanako KodairaShi Deng
More and detailed information about CEAL RDA Review
Available at CEAL Committee on Technical Processinghttp://cealctp.lib.uci.edu/
Please join the shared effort in CEAL Review of RDA Drafts
Thank You!
