Wayne's recent posting on coding authority records for Kyrgyz and Kazakh and its impact on BIBCO records was sufficiently puzzling that I referred it to the LC--CPSO specialists in romanisation.
Their response is that the lack of adequate resources to substantiate the form of name (e.g., lack of a romanisation table) is sufficient to code an NAR provisional 008/33 = c; however, a BIBCO record may be contributed if it is supported by an NAR coded provisional for this reason.
As this situation reflects the absence of a required cataloging tool (a romanization table) and not a lack of expertise, it does not fall within the prohibition against creating BIBCO records that include such headings that is contained in DCM Z1, section 008/31, "Level of Establishment"
Anthony R.D. Franks
Team Leader, Cooperative Cataloging Team
Library of Congress
>>> Wayne Richter <[log in to unmask]> 10/08/07 2:42 PM >>>
I have been doing a backlog cleanup project which includes books in Kyrgyz and Kazakh in Arabic script. There is no existing romanisation table which should be used for these materials (there are substantial differences in usage which precludes the use of the Uighur RT). In the process I have found both NARs and pcc bibs which are based on or in these languages and script. It is my understanding that any NARs should have 008/33, of necessity, coded "c" provisional because of the lack of
an "official" romanisation scheme but I am finding most coded "a" fully established.
I have one work for which I found several bib records using 5 distinct romanisations. I haven't read the full BIBCO documentation but is it policy to allow pcc records for works for which there is no "official" romanisation scheme.
I am doing all originals as "K" level in OCLC and any NARs are being coded "c" because any romanisation would be provisional.
Asian Materials Specialist/PCC Liaison
Western Washington University
Bellingham, WA 98225-9103