Home--Minutes--Minutes Archives

Minutes of  AJL's RAS Cataloging Committee Meeting

Association of Jewish Libraries 2015 Conference, Silver Spring MD

June 21, 2015

Present: Heidi Lerner (Stanford, Chair, lerner@stanford.edu); Avrom Shuchatowitz (YU, shuchato@yu.edu); Aaron Kuperman (LC, akup@loc.gov); Jerry Anne Dickel (Yale, geraldine.dickel@yale.edu); Jasmin Shinohara (U. of Pennsylvania, jshino@upenn.edu); Lenore Bell (US Holocaust Memorial Museum, lbell@ushmm.org); Uri Kolodney (U. of Texas at Austin, kolodney@austin.texas.edu); Amy Alderfer (US Holocaust Memorial Museum, aalderfer@ushmm.org); Elizabeth Vernon (Harvard, vernon@fas.harvard.edu); Roger Kohn (LC, rkoh@loc.gov); Marlene Schiffman (YU, schiffma@yu.edu); Yossi Galron (OSU, galron.1@osu.edu); Rachel Simon (Princeton, rsimon@princeton.edu); Stanley Nachamie (snachamie@yahoo.com); Elhanan Adler (consultant to NLI+, elhanana@savion.huji.ac.il); Daniel Scheide (FAU, dschedie@fau.edu); Sharon Benamou (UCLA, benamou@library.ucla.edu); Julie Cohen (Yale, j.cohen@yale.edu); Riny Goldsmith (NLI, marina.goldsmith@nli.org.il); Vanessa Freedman (U. College London, v.freedman@ucl.ac.uk); Aaron Taub (LC, atau@loc.gov); Nancy Sack (U. of Hawaii, sack@hawaii.edu); Rachel Leket-Mor (ASU, Rachel.Leket-Mor@asu.edu); Galina Teverovsky (LC, gtev@loc.gov); Sarah Barnard (HUC, sbarnard@huc.edu)

Welcome and introductions

Attendees introduced themselves.  There were a few new faces in the group.  The 2014 Minutes were approved. 

Old Business

1. Hebraica Cataloging RDA: A Guide was reviewed, posted on the web, and included in Cataloger’s Desktop.

2. The issue regarding collective titles was resolved.

3. There were no decisions made on the Romanization modifications under consideration.

4. The question of current and future members has been resolved. Heidi Lerner will continue to serve as chair for the coming year and will confirm members. A new two-year membership cycle will begin next year.

New Business

1. Updating Hebraica Cataloging RDA: A Guide (HCR): HCR is intended to be a dynamic resource, one which should be kept up-to-date with the changes to RDA on an ongoing basis; however, the effort to review the regular RDA updates to determine what changes need to be incorporated or otherwise addressed is an enormous task for any one person. Heidi Lerner sought to recruit members to a subcommittee which would undertake the effort. The following individuals volunteered to serve on the group: Sharon Benamou, Jasmin Shinohara, Jerry Anne Dickel, Daniel Scheide.  

2. Library operations post-OCLC Institutional Records (IRs): Rachel Simon asked attendees to address how their institutions plan to deal with the OCLC’s transition to phase out IR’s. [Note: The transition was addressed at the OCLC Update meeting, held just prior to the Cataloging Committee meeting. IR’s were implemented by OCLC at the time of OCLC’s merger with RLG as an effort to accommodate former RLG libraries who wished to maintain a semblance of the RLIN model of individual institutional records, separate from OCLC’s master record.]   Yossi Galron reported that Ohio State was not formerly an RLG library so it does not maintain IR’s. He pointed out that OCLC is more liberal now in allowing institutions to upgrade records, and urged others to update and replace non-PCC records, stressing that other institutions will further update the records as needed.  Heidi Lerner noted that Stanford has already ceased creating IR’s months ago in anticipation of the change, but added that Stanford’s copy catalogers generally do not update and replace records. She urged attendees to submit PCC records, stating that catalogers may be independent for BIBCO without being independent for NACO. Jerry Anne Dickel indicated that Yale has continued to create IR’s, but will cease at some point, and has established a task force to consider the various options described by the OCLC representative. Jasmin Shinohara reported that Penn is in a similar situation.  It was noted that as RDA offers so many options, many institutions will need to update and replace records in a more standard way, and then add the more institution-specific elements as “Local Bib Data.”

3. Recording the Hebrew date in the romanized 264 field in cases where a regular [i.e., Gregorian] date appears: Under AACR2, and Hebraica Cataloging guidelines, when a Gregorian publication date appeared on the item, an equivalent Hebrew date was not recorded in the record. Under RDA, both the Gregorian and Hebrew date are recorded. Yossi Galron recommended supplying both dates in the non-roman field, but supplying only the Gregorian date in the romanized field.  Heidi Lerner confirmed that RDA requires that both dates be recorded in the non-roman and romanized fields. Aaron Kuperman suggested approaching LC’s Policy and Support Division with the question; however, he indicated that PSD tended to follow the RDA approach of “record what you see.”

4. Non-roman numerals in script field: Sharon Benamou raised questions related to RDA 1.8.3 and 2.8.6.4  for numbers expressed as words (chronograms).  She indicated that proposals have been submitted to the PCC to use only western dates, and that the broader PCC guidelines for non-Latin script application are under review. It was mentioned that LC allows using Hebrew characters for dates, although the PCC does not recognize the practice. Roger Kohn mentioned that LC’s Israel & Judaica Section recently submitted their recommendations for the guidelines. Sharon Benamou was asked to share the draft PCC guidelines and Roger Kohn was asked if he could share LC’s recommendations. Roger Kohn noted that that if the Hebrew date and Gregorian date both appear, LC supplies whichever one appears first, followed by an equal sign (with no spaces) followed by the subsequent date. Both dates are supplied in this manner in both the romanized and non-roman field. Aaron Kuperman noted that if an additional Hebrew date might be interpreted as a copyright date, it would be not have to be recorded as a “parallel” publication date.

Other business

1. It is possible now to display Hebrew script summaries without the need to supply a parallel translated or romanized summary. Summaries may be copied from NLI records, which are sometimes re-purposed publisher blurbs.  There are work-arounds for systems which technically cannot display a Hebrew field without a parallel romanized field.

2. Riny Goldsmith mentioned an NLI project to scan cover images and link them to records.

3. A question was raised about the new treatment under RDA of recording translated titles found outside of the traditional chief source.  Aaron Kuperman noted guidance from PSD:

•  245 XX $a Romanized Hebrew title  : $b romanized Hebrew other title info = Translated title : translated other title info / $c romanized Hebrew statement of responsibility.
•  Also, add 246 indicating the source of the translated/parallel title.

4. Yossi Galron mentioned the benefits of recording the Danacode, an Israeli commercial book identifier. He also mentioned that some libraries are confusing the Danacode with the ISBN, and improperly recording it. The Danacode may be searched as keyword.  Ohio State records the Danacode as follows:

•  024 #7  XXXXXXXXXXXXX $2 Danacode
•  Riny Goldsmith indicated that NLI uses a Danacode converter (Excel sheet formula) to convert a fragmented Danacode into the standard 13-digit identifier. She will share the converter via the HebNACO list.

5. Heidi Lerner mentioned her work on Stanford’s Bibframe test team, and noted the challenging back-end technology training which was a prerequisite for her involvement. Roger Kohn will be participating in upcoming Bibframe input editor testing at LC.

A participant ended the session noting that RDA also stands for “Retirement Day Arrived,” but the attendees were lauded for staying in the field and thanked for their engagement in the RAS Cataloging Committee!

Minutes recorded by Lenore Bell; submitted to Heidi Lerner Nov. 11, 2015.

(downloadable copy)

Home