Transcript Report on CEAL RDA Review Shi Deng ([email protected]) UCSD Libraries Outline     RDA Review Background information CEAL RDA Review Subcommittee activities CEAL comments submitted to ALA Members of.

Report on CEAL RDA Review
Shi Deng ([email protected])
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



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 Guidelines
1.
2.
3.
4.
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;
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;
Some comments from CEAL members may exhibit marked
disagreement from each other on some proposed rules within
each draft RDA Part; and
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 nonroman 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
Proposal 2
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 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 1
yin hang shi
Variant access: Taiwan di yi
yin hang shi
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 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, 1.6.2.11.6.2.3 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 nonroman 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 presidentelect)
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/
Please join the shared effort in
CEAL Review of RDA Drafts
Thank You!