[Heb-NACO] recording hebrew date in vernacular field

Thu May 5 15:39:35 EDT 2016

As I see it - it should be

245xx ירושלים בתש"ח
245xx Yerushalayim be-708

Yossi

Joseph (Yossi) Galron-Goldschläger
E-Mail: galron.1 at osu.edu  or jgalron at gmail.com
Tel.: (614) 292-3362,  Fax: (614)292-1918
Lexicon of Modern Hebrew Literature: http://go.osu.edu/hebrewlit

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Shinohara, Jasmin <jshino at pobox.upenn.edu>
wrote:

> Very good, Heidi, thank you for explaining the varied practice we see in
> bib records.  You know I’m a fan of consistency, but I guess I’ll leave
> what I find as is (and do as PCC when creating originals…)
>
>
>
> A follow-up question regarding numerals and dates in titles: HCM2, p.35,
> says LC practice is “Hebrew letters are retained on the non-roman
> bibliographic record…”  Is that the same for the vernacular field in roman
> (i.e. 040 $b eng, aka, our) bib records?  The examples show a source and a
> Romanization, but not the parallel vernacular field.  E.g. the source is ירושלים
> בתש"ח and the romanized 245 is Yerushalayim be-708 (with the alternate
> 246 Yerushalayim be-Tashah); is the vernacular ירושלים בתש"ח or ירושלים
> ב-708?  Again, I see mixed practice.
>
>
>
> Thanks again, Jasmin
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Heb-naco [mailto:heb-naco-bounces at lists.osu.edu] *On Behalf Of *Heidi
> G Lerner
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 05, 2016 2:27 PM
> *To:* Hebrew Name Authority Funnel
> *Cc:* Shtuhl, Smadar
> *Subject:* Re: [Heb-NACO] recording hebrew date in vernacular field
>
>
>
> Hi Jasmin,
>
>
>
> You have a choice in the situation. If you choose to code it for BIBCO you
> will have to follow the PCC Guidelines for Creating  Bibliographic Records
> in Multiple Character Sets. It appears that any update to the 2010 document
> has yet to appear so that is what PCC catalogers have to work with. In
> other words you will have to substitute "Arabic" numbers for the Hebrew
> letters of the date.
>
>
>
> LC's policy is different as you point out.
>
>
>
> RDA Hebraica Cataloging functino is presenting the options for Hebraica
> catalogers. Catalogers at LC must use Hebrew letters in the vernacular
> field; PCC catalogers have to substitute Arabic numbers; non-PCC and non-LC
> catalogers can choose to do what they want.
>
>
>
> I know that we have discussed this issue in the past and I  honestly can't
> remember if our community was engaged by the task force working on
> preparing the next version of the above document to conform to RDA rules.
>
>
>
> Sharon Benamou was a member of that committee. I will try and get in touch
> with her to find out the status of that group. I believe that Peter
> Fletcher is the head of that group.
>
>
>
> I hope that this helps clarify the different options available to you.
>
>
>
> If the issue has not been brought to the attention of the task force I
> will add it to our agenda for our June 19th meeting in Charleston.
>
>
>
> Meanwhile your edition statement should be recorded as
>
>
>
> Mahadurah rishonah
>
> מהדורה ראשונה
>
>
>
> since that is how it appears your resource (RDA 2.5.1.4).
>
>
>
> Best, Heidi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Heidi G. Lerner
>
> Metadata Librarian for Hebraica and Judaica
>
> Metadata Dept.
>
> Stanford University Libraries
>
> Stanford, CA 94305-6004
>
> ph: 650-725-9953
>
> fax: 650-725-1120
>
> e-mail: lerner at stanford.edu
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Heb-naco <heb-naco-bounces+lerner=stanford.edu at lists.osu.edu> on
> behalf of Shinohara, Jasmin <jshino at pobox.upenn.edu>
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 5, 2016 10:44 AM
> *To:* Hebrew Name Authority Funnel
> *Cc:* Shtuhl, Smadar
> *Subject:* [Heb-NACO] recording hebrew date in vernacular field
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I’m trying to understand how to best parse HCM2’s recommendation vis a vis
> the PCC practice for Alternative (1st) … : 2.5.2, p. 16. “If the date of
> publication is represented only in Hebrew letters, the numbers must be
> rendered in Western-style Arabic numerals.”  One example is then given for
> “715 [1954 or 1955]” in both the vernacular and romanized 264 fields.
> (HCM2, p. 37)  Before that, though, the LC practice for Alternative (1st)
> states: … generally supply non-Latin scripts for the languages/scripts …:
> …Hebrew, Yiddish, … .  If following minimal level cataloguing guidelines,
> the records for these languages/scripts may be fully romanized.” (HCM2, p.
> 36-37)
>
>
>
> I have in front of me the following in the source:
>
>
>
> מהדורה ראשונה, אדר ב', תשע"ד, 2014
>
>
>
> We take dates following ed. statements to be pub. dates, but in this case
> our date of publication is NOT “represented only in Hebrew letters”, so do
> we follow the PCC practice on 2.5.2 and render the date in Arabic
> numerals?  Also, as per the LC practice, we are to supply the non-Latin
> scripts. But we are following more than minimal level cataloguing, so
> should they be romanized?
>
>
>
> My vernacular 250 is מהדורה 1.; is the vernacular 264_1
>
>
>
> אדר 2., 774 = 2014
>
> or
>
> אדר ב' תשע"ד = 2014
>
>
>
> (The romanized 264_1 is Adar 2., 774 [March 2014] = 2014, with fixed
> fields DtSt=e, Date 1=2014, Date 2=03.)
>
>
>
> Please advise.  Thanks, Jasmin
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Jasmin Shinohara
>
> Hebraica Cataloging Librarian
>
> University of Pennsylvania
>
> Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center
>
> 3420 Walnut Street
>
> Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206
>
> T. 215-746-6397
>
> F. 215-573-9610
>
> jshino at upenn.edu
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Heb-naco mailing list
> Heb-naco at lists.osu.edu
> https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/heb-naco/attachments/20160505/93b93f0d/attachment-0001.html>