Heidrun, I believe the code in 008/35-37 and the code in subfield $a of 041 (and probably most of the other 041 subfields, except $h) do qualify as legitimate ways to record language of expression under 6.11.1.3. We are told to "record the language or languages of the expression using an appropriate term or terms in a language preferred by the agency creating the data" and the agency could say its preference is to record the language as a code. In fact that is exactly how we record language of expression under PCC practice in an expression authority record (language code in 377). So I don't believe that 6.11.1.3 only allows recording the information in "natural language".
I also agree that 041 $h gives exactly the same information as the "Translated from" note (at least the very general one we've been discussing), but the reason I think (or thought--see the next paragraph) in this case that the code is non-RDA is because of the definitions of structured and unstructured description in 24.4.3, which is pretty clearly given in terms of natural language (structured description: "a full or partial description of the related resource using the same data that would be recorded in RDA elements for a description of that related resource"; unstructured description: "a full or partial description of the related resource written as a sentence or paragraph"). I suppose this could be remedied by tweaking the definition of structured description -- codes in 041 seem pretty "structured" to me. Alternately it could be argued that "the same data that would be recorded in RDA elements for ... the related resource" could in fact apply to the code in 041 $h: if the element we're talking about is the language of expression element, and we've agreed (as seen above in the first paragraph) that in the description of the related resource (that is the description of the French original, whether that description is a bibliographic record or an authority record for the expression) the language of expression element can be recorded as a code in bibliographic 041 $a (or the code in 008/35-37), or in an authority record it can be recorded as a code in 377, then under the definition of structured description it can be recorded as a code in 041 $h in the bibliographic record for the translation. Under this argument the code is in fact a structured description of that particular element and thus is not a non-RDA element. I think I've convinced myself. How about you? :-) Bob Robert L. Maxwell Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept. 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. ________________________________ From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Heidrun Wiesenmüller [wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de] Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 3:01 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] "Translated from" notes and code for original language Bob, "Translated from the French" is an unstructured description of the relationship of the resource to another expression (though it's not a very specific description) and is covered by RDA 24.4.3. See also the example at 26.1.1.3 "The English edition of a Spanish publication, which is also issued in French, German, and Arabic editions", which like the "Translated from the French" note describes in a very general way the relationship of the resource to four other expressions. Thanks. You're probably right, it could count as an (albeit very general) unstructured description. I'd say the codes in 041 are non-RDA (at least they don't fall under the definition of either structured or unstructured description in 24.4.3), but that doesn't mean that they can't be recorded in a MARC record (they aren't AACR2 either). Good point. Actually, they also aren't mentioned in the German RAK rules, and it never bothered me before ;-) But there is one more general point which comes to mind: If you think about it, the code in 041 $h gives exactly the same information as the "Translated from" note - only in coded form instead of natural language. But we've come to the conclusion that the note can be seen as an RDA element, but the code cannot (if we take the wording of 24.4.3 seriously). I feel that RDA needs to become more aware of the existence of coded information. 6.11.1.3 (Recording language of expression) is a good example for this. If I understand the rule correctly, it only provides for recording the language of the expression in natural language, but not as a code. I accept that using natural language terms makes sense e.g. as part of an authorized access point (although, of course, you could still record a code, but show it to the users as natural language). But isn't it also a way of recording "language of the expression", whenever a language code is used in MARC 008 35-37? So, why not have a more general rule in the first place and say, e.g. "Record the language or languages of the expression using appropriate means, e.g. an appropriate term in the language preferred by the agency creating the data"? Then the natural language terms could be used where appropriate, but the use of codes would also be covered by the wording of the instruction. But perhaps I'm on the wrong track here altogether and have simply misunderstood the application of 6.11.1.3. Heidrun -- --------------------- Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi<http://www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi>
