Presentation on theme: "Report on CEAL RDA Review Shi Deng UCSD Libraries."— Presentation transcript:
Report on CEAL RDA Review Shi Deng (firstname.lastname@example.org) UCSD Libraries
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/r da.html http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/r da.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 (contd) 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 Guidelines 1. 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 (contd) Other issues addressed: Concern about effectiveness of reviewing drafts when examples are behind the schedule Concerns about using terms oriental and vernacular (RDA 22.214.171.124.) Inadequate instruction in transcribing omitted or unreadable character/word (RDA 1.6.)
Highlights of CEAL Comments on RDA Part I drafts (contd) 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. & 126.96.36.199) 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: Transliteration: 1989 shui mo hua chuang xin zhan Variant access: Yi jiu ba jiu shui mo hua chuang xin zhan Original scripts: Transliteration: Taiwan di 1 yin hang shi Variant access: Taiwan di yi yin hang shi Proposal 2 Original script: Transliteration: Yi jiu ba jiu shui mo hua chuang xin zhan Variant access: 1989 shui mo hua chuang xin zhan Original scripts: Transliteration: Taiwan di yi yin hang shi Variant access: Taiwan di 1 yin hang shi
LC Proposal on RDA Part I Internationalization Goal of proposal To 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 reviewed 1. 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, 188.8.131.52- 184.108.40.206 and related rules. (proposed revision) 4. Calendar. Instructions 1.6. and 220.127.116.11, 18.104.22.168 (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 2 nd bullet to the 1 st one as any statement relating to edition Add optional rule under 2 nd bullet: add or substitute numerals in the script preferred by the agency preparing the description
Proposed revisions of 22.214.171.124-126.96.36.199 188.8.131.52 Roman numerals and 184.108.40.206 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 220.127.116.11 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-Officio Mary Lin (Wisconsin-Madison, Chair, CTP) Comments Consolidation Dawn Lawson Nanako Kodaira Shi Deng
More and detailed information about CEAL RDA Review Available at CEAL Committee on Technical Processing http://cealctp.lib.uci.edu/