LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for UNICODE-MARC Archives


UNICODE-MARC Archives

UNICODE-MARC Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

UNICODE-MARC Home

UNICODE-MARC Home

UNICODE-MARC  October 2006

UNICODE-MARC October 2006

Subject:

The Unicode mapping of the ligature

From:

Vitus Tang <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

UNICODE-MARC Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 21 Oct 2006 05:53:56 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (37 lines)

I am new to this list and am looking for advice on a particular MARC-8 to 
Unicode conversion issue, the conversion of the ligature.

My library (Stanford Univ. Libraries) is in the process of converting its 
local system to Unicode. As part of that, our ILS vendor will convert our 
MARC-8 bibliographic database to Unicode according to the MARC21 standard. 
In September 2004, the mapping of the two halves of the ligature (M+EB and 
M+EC) was officially changed from U+FE20 and U+FE21 to U+0361 (see 
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cocoon/codetables/45.html) after Proposal 2004-08 was 
reviewed and approved. Our vendor's conversion program follows the new 
mapping, as it should, and so the ligatures that currently exist in our 
database will be converted to U+0361. However, both RLG and OCLC are 
currently still following the old mapping when records are exported in 
UTF-8 from their systems, and upon inquiry I was told that both 
organizations have no plan to implement the new mapping in the foreseeable 
future. This seems like a problematic situation to us, one that could lead 
to the same character being encoded in two different ways in the same 
database. In the short term, we can get around it by continuing to export 
records from WorldCat and RLIN in MARC-8, and run them through our local 
system's conversion program before loading in order to produce the same 
encoding, but that is not a good long term solution. I am interested to 
know how other libraries that have already converted to Unicode deal with 
this issue, and whether there is work underway within the MARC21 community 
to resolve this conflict.

Thanks.

-- Vitus

_____________________________________________

Vitus Tang
Head, Data & Materials Control
Cataloging and Metadata Services
Stanford University Libraries
[log in to unmask] - (650) 725-1153 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

April 2018
February 2016
September 2013
March 2013
September 2008
December 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager