As I see it - it should be 245xx ירושלים בתש"ח 245xx Yerushalayim be-708
Yossi Joseph (Yossi) Galron-Goldschläger E-Mail: galro...@osu.edu or jgal...@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 <jsh...@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-boun...@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: ler...@stanford.edu > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Heb-naco <heb-naco-bounces+lerner=stanford....@lists.osu.edu> on > behalf of Shinohara, Jasmin <jsh...@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 > > jsh...@upenn.edu > > > > _______________________________________________ > Heb-naco mailing list > Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu > https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco > >
_______________________________________________ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
