[Heb-NACO] recording hebrew date in vernacular field

Thu May 5 15:58:10 EDT 2016

Very good.  Thanks again for the clarification!

From: Heb-naco [mailto:heb-naco-bounces at lists.osu.edu] On Behalf Of Heidi G Lerner
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 3:44 PM
To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel
Cc: Shtuhl, Smadar
Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] recording hebrew date in vernacular field

I think your confusion is based on the language of the manual. Instead of "non-roman bibliograpica record" we should have said "non-roman parallel field". We are not talking about any record that do not have "$beng" in the 040 field.

This will need to be fixed as we work on the update to the current version (in process). Yosi's e-mail just sent has the correct practice.

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<mailto:lerner at stanford.edu>

________________________________
From: Heb-naco <heb-naco-bounces+lerner=stanford.edu at lists.osu.edu<mailto:heb-naco-bounces+lerner=stanford.edu at lists.osu.edu>> on behalf of Shinohara, Jasmin <jshino at pobox.upenn.edu<mailto:jshino at pobox.upenn.edu>>
Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2016 12:10 PM
To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel
Cc: Shtuhl, Smadar
Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] recording hebrew date in vernacular field

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<mailto:lerner at stanford.edu>

________________________________

From: Heb-naco <heb-naco-bounces+lerner=stanford.edu at lists.osu.edu<mailto:heb-naco-bounces+lerner=stanford.edu at lists.osu.edu>> on behalf of Shinohara, Jasmin <jshino at pobox.upenn.edu<mailto: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<mailto:jshino at upenn.edu>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/heb-naco/attachments/20160505/ccc58548/attachment-0001.html>