JSC Teleconference 13th December, 2010
Teleconference decisions in blue
1
Internationalisation
1.1.1 Omission of Initial Articles
Title of the Work
Current
RDA
number: 6.2.1.7
instruction
AACR2 rule: 25.2C
From 5JSC/RDA/Sections 2–4, 9/ALA response:
5.5.4. Here and elsewhere, ALA believes that the instruction
to omit the initial article is a simplistic solution that conceals
the point of the instruction. If the objective is to support
sorting on the element following the article, then the
instruction should be to encode the title so that the initial
article is not used in sorting. Omitting the article as
instructed is only one way to accomplish this, and it
supports the desired sorting at the expense of other
functionality, such as display of the title as found
From 5JSC/RDA/Sections 2–4, 9/CILIP response:
CILIP again notes that the omission of initial articles can
sometimes cause grammatical nonsense in inflected
languages (e.g., E.T.A. Hoffman’s Der goldne Topf: if “Der”
were omitted, the phrase should grammatically read
Goldner Topf).
Comments from DNB on RDA6/Sec/1
“We think that initial articles should be recorded in any
case. For the sorting in an OPAC or a bibliography the
initial article can be skipped. The omission of initial articles
can often cause grammatical nonsense in inflected
languages. For example, in the German language the
adjective changes if one omits the article. Example:
“Der seidene Faden” would be “Seidener Faden” without
the article. The omission of initial articles can also imply a
compound where it is not. MARC 21 and other formats
provide non sorting characters to handle display and
sorting of the data different.”
1/8
Initial articles in phrases used as the names of persons
Current RDA instruction
9.2.2.25; 9.2.2.26
numbers:
AACR2 rule: 22.11D
From the cover letter for 5JSC/RDA/Sections 2–4, 9:
RDA 9.2.21.2, 9.2.22.2. Initial articles in phrases used as
the names of persons. The JSC will further discuss whether
these instructions can be revised to allow the retention of
initial articles.
From 5JSC/RDA/Sections 2–4, 9/BL response:
9.2.21.2 9.2.22.2
Omission of the initial article may create a nonsensical
access point for phrases in reflexive languages. Retention
of the initial article will inhibit browsing under the first
significant word. Changing the current instructions will
necessitate backfield clean up.
The principles on which RDA is based argue strongly in favour of
retaining the initial article. There are significant practical obstacles
to be overcome. The BL view is that the RDA instruction should be
to retain the initial article, but an alternative instruction should
sanction its deletion. This gives a clear signal of the direction in
which RDA is travelling.
Initial articles [in names of corporate bodies]
Current
RDA
number: 11.2.2.8
instruction
AACR2 rule: 24.5A1
From the cover letter for 5JSC/RDA/Sections 2–4, 9:
RDA 11.2.0.6 Initial articles used in the names of corporate
bodies. The JSC will further discuss whether these
instructions can be revised to allow the retention of initial
articles.
Note: discussed at October 2007 meeting (5JSC/M/185.7.1)
DNB also commented in response to RDA6/Sec/1
“We recommend abandoning this rule (See also German
comments on RDA Full draft). See similar aspect in chapter
6.”
2/8
1.1.1.1
For discussion by JSC:
None of the constituencies has indicated that they are
willing to make a proposal.
Questions
1. Should JSC invite another rule making body to
propose a new instruction to replace the existing
instruction at 6.2.1.7 and for the existing instruction
to remain as an alternative instruction?
2. Should the same approach be taken with regard to
9.2.2.25-9.2.2.26 and 11.2.2.8?
Summary of discussion and actions
BL suggested that the omission of initial articles from the title of
the work, name of person and name of corporate body were
basically three aspects of the same issue. BL asked whether the
rest of JSC thought it would be appropriate to invite DNB to raise a
proposal. ACOC said that it would and added that if the DNB were
seeking to influence the development of RDA going forward then it
would be best if they started with a relatively straightforward
issue. ALA commented that they were not sure this issue would
prove so straightforward in practise but that having a proposal
from DNB before looking at some of the more complex
ramifications would be a good idea. LAC commented that,
whatever the DNB proposed, an alternative instruction would have
to be included allowing the omission of the article if so desired. BL
agreed that there would have to be an option to carry on omitting
initial articles for the time being. ACOC queried whether, if DNB
were being invited to raise a proposal, JSC should broaden the
invitation to raise proposals so that it encompassed other
communities. ALA commented that such a precedent should not be
set yet. The proposal from DNB should be treated as a follow up
issue raised by a national body.
JSC agreed that although the proposal would come from
DNB, it would be treated as a chair proposal and would
therefore be part of the chair document group. A limitation
on the DNB proposal would be that the omission of initial
articles would still be permissible as an option in RDA.
BL queried whether personal names and corporate bodies should
be dealt with in the same way as title of the work in relation to the
omission of initial articles.
3/8
JSC agreed that personal names and corporate bodies should
be dealt with in the same way as title of the work and that
this would not conflict with any other planned changes
relating to personal names and corporate bodies.
N.B. It was suggested that DNB may also be interested in
making a proposal on 11.2.2.10.
ACTION : Chair to contact DNB.
1.1.2 Appendix B Abbreviations
1.1.2.1
Background
Language scope
Expand language scope beyond those covered
now in B.7-B.10. JSC reference: Proposed by
the LC representative February 2009
B.11 Names of Certain Countries, States, Provinces,
Territories, etc.
Consider removal of abbreviations for certain countries, states,
provinces, territories, etc. (April 2008 meeting 5JSC/M/258.5.10)
M258,5,10 “Judy Kuhagen noted that the JSC had agreed to
remove abbreviations for months. She asked
whether the JSC wanted to retain the abbreviations
for certain countries, states, provinces, territories,
etc. The JSC agreed that they would be retained for
the first release of RDA. Adam Schiff commented
that “Yukon Territory” was now “Yukon”. The JSC
agreed that this meant it did not need to be included
in the table.
Action=Appendices Working Group; Secretary
(List of issues for consideration after the first
release of RDA)”
1.1.3 For discussion by JSC
Is this related to LC’s proposal for 16.2.2.9?
Does JSC wish to revisit the use of abbreviations in the name of
certain countries?
4/8
Summary of discussion and actions
LC commented that the Appendices Working Group had realised
that B.7-B.10 were not comprehensive in their coverage and that
Appendix B could be expanded to include abbreviations for
additional languages. LC added that their proposed amendment of
B.11 was unrelated to the instruction at 16.2.2.9 which they
wanted to discuss separately in the future. ALA commented that
in terms of B.7-B.10 there is a present need to limit the number of
abbreviations being used as a means of limiting the effect on
authority files. BL agreed that this was not a good time to make
changes which would have a dramatic effect on authority data.
ACOC commented that if the reason to leave Appendix B as it is for
now was because of its impact on authority files then it would be a
good idea to have this recorded as a pragmatic decision in order to
offset any criticism.
JSC opinion was strongly against either extending the
language coverage of Appendix B, or of making any changes
to the use of abbreviations as instructed by 11.3.1.3.
It was agreed that this decision and that the other decisions
on deferred items should be published on the JSC Website.
Chair to issue as a follow up to 6JSC/Sec/1.
ACTION : Chair
1.1.4 Appendix C Initial Articles
1.1.4.1
Background
Additions
At the October 2006 meeting the JSC agreed to call for
additions to the appendix on initial articles after the first
release of RDA (5JSC/M/111.6).
Dialects
From the CILIP representative (email 8 November 2007):
App C covers situations in which dialects use the same article(s)
as their "parent" language. But with the solitary exception of
Shetland I don't think we've ever attempted to deal with dialects
which have articles that are different from those of their parent
languages. The UK alone can muster a number of such beasts, and
I doubt we're alone. But the first question would be how far we
might want to go in this area (if at all - but then Shetland would be
a curious exception)
5/8
DNB Comment
“See also German comments on RDA Full draft: The German
National Library would appreciate as a key rule that names
(including titles) shall not be modified in spelling, punctuation,
spacing, completeness (including initial articles), or its natural
order, but that the name shall be recorded in the form as given in
the respective source of information. Modified forms may be
recorded additionally as variant forms of the name, if needed.”
1.1.4.2
Issues for discussion
There are three separate issues:
1. Should JSC invite suggestions to develop the list?
2. What is the scope of Appendix C? Is it limited to languages
or should dialects be included? This is a difficult and
contentious distinction to make. As CILIP notes, one dialect
is already included. As dialects may use initial articles and
as titles may begin with initial articles there seems no
justification not to permit dialect forms.
3. If the German argument is accepted, there is no need for a
list of initial articles.
However there is a major
implementation issue at stake. It may be acceptable to offer
alternative instructions, but it would not be acceptable in the
short to medium term to remove the option of omitting the
article.
Summary of discussion and actions
LC commented that the Appendices Working Group had queried
whether it was necessary for RDA to include sections listing initial
articles in different languages. If users of RDA do not know what
language they are dealing with in the first place, then the content
of Appendix C may be of little use to them. Also, the lists of
articles for different languages are not comprehensive at C.2 and
C.3. C.1 already contains the instruction : “For languages not
included in the lists in C.2 and C.3 , consult reference sources to
determine if the language uses definite and/or indefinite articles.”
This being the case, it may be more consistent for RDA to
recommend that users consult reference sources for all information
relating to initial articles. BL commented that the purpose of
Appendix C was to collocate as much information on articles as
possible in one place. However, if parts of the appendix were not
considered to add value then they should be removed. ACOC
commented that users could be encouraged to consult and add
terms to a socially networked list of articles. There could be a link
from the Toolkit to this as a related resource. ALA commented that
6/8
this scenario would be better than one in which JSC had to work
through the sets of terms itself. BL commented that this avenue
may be worth exploring, although such a link would not be
accessible via the print version of RDA.
As regards the German requirement
recorded in the form as given in
information”, BL commented that this
C.1. However, an option would still
omission of initial articles if so desired.
that “the name shall be
the respective source of
could be accommodated at
be required to allow the
JSC agreed in principle that there was no obligation on JSC to
maintain the list of initial articles in Appendix C. The list could
be made available on a public space for maintenance by the
community. A link could be provided to the external list from
the Toolkit resources tab.
ACTION = Chair.
2 Data about data
The following questions have arisen with regard to data about data:
1. Should “data about data” attributes be defined:
a. generically, that is as “free-floating” attributes that can
be used with any relevant element?
b. Explicitly, that is for each element to which they may
apply?
2. How many RDA elements require “data about data”?
Summary of discussion and actions
Different approaches to support “time” and “language” were
explored.
The validity of “free-floating” elements within the
context of an entity relationship model was questioned. Attributes
have to be associated with an entity. Although in RDF it would be
possible to express the relationship as a triple, RDF should not
drive development of the RDA model. Handling the attributes
outside the model, through schemas, as is currently done in MARC
21, would strand important bibliographic information about
resources outside RDA.
BL suggested that the case for considering “Time” as an entity in
its own right was stronger than for “language”. ACOC suggested
that JSC start by looking at the Element Analysis table in terms of
time, to try to identify which elements had a temporal aspect. LC
7/8
commented that before this took place they would need to look at
the finalized list of elements. ALA commented that the final list of
elements was on the JSC website and this was aligned with the
version on the Toolkit.
There was also a discussion concerning the Registry. BL reminded
the rest of JSC that there are two elements sets being registered:
a generalised set and a FRBR compliant set. The generalised set is
important to RDF users who do not want to be constrained by
FRBR.
ACTION : Chair to send LC details of the latest element set
and paper from Tom Delsey.
Any other business
BL reported that the first week in August was looking favourable
for the next JSC meeting. This would be most convenient for CoP.
LC queried whether CoP would have to be present. BL responded
that if CoP did not have to attend then an earlier date for the
meeting might be possible. However, an earlier meeting would
mean tighter deadlines for the submission of proposals. Neither
ALA nor BL was sure of submitting their proposals by May. ACOC
commented that it would be helpful to have the meeting after LC
had made a decision on RDA implementation. BL agreed that this
would be desirable, whether or not CoP is involved.
JSC agreed to hold their next meeting after ALA.
JSC was in favour of LC’s suggestion for a social event (at
the delegates’ expense) after the meeting.
BL reported that Katharine Gryspeerdt would shortly be sending
out Doodle polls to establish dates for teleconferences in 2011.
8/8