LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCTG1 Archives


PCCTG1 Archives

PCCTG1 Archives


PCCTG1@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


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

PCCTG1 Home

PCCTG1 Home

PCCTG1  May 2009

PCCTG1 May 2009

Subject:

Re: PCC Non Latin task force new member; timeline; update

From:

"Avetyan, Nora" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 27 May 2009 16:54:46 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

For Persian we use the non ALA-LC form as authorized form if the name does not exist anywhere in the book in Persian script. If the name in Persian is not prominent we use the Roman form as the authorized form of the name in the authority record, and use the Persian transliterated form and the Arabic script in 4xx as cross references, but if the Persian form is on a priority source (title page, series page, etc.) we use the ALA-LC transliterated form as the authorized form even if the book is mostly in English or other Roman script languages and we use the non ALA-LC form as a cross reference. We don't use the dates in the original script field in the Authority record either. I have to say that basically we go by the LCRI 22.22 and tried to make it a more uniform practice.

I hope I answered your question peter.

Thank you.
Nora


-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Rendall
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 3:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] PCC Non Latin task force new member; timeline; update

I'm back from China and Mongolia (where the Cyrillic alphabet has two 
extra letters not included in MARC-8, alas) and catching up on e-mail.  
I'll just chime in to say that I don't think is as frequently an issue 
for Arabic since there is no instruction equivalent to the one in LCRI 
22.3C for Hebraic-script names to prefer a found romanization.  LCRI 
22.22 says to prefer the systematically romanized form if the Arabic 
script form is known.  But there are still cases where non-standard 
forms (from the point of view of LC romanization) are common enough in 
"general English-language reference sources" to be chosen as the 
authorized form, such as "Avicenna, 980-1037" for Ibn Sina or "Qaddafi, 
Muammar" for Mu'ammar al-Qadhdhafi.  And according to the HAPY practice 
that others have described, in bib. records with these headings LC and 
others are entering e.g. "Ibn Sina" in Arabic script parallel 100 
fields, omitting the dates.

Robert.

Fletcher, Peter wrote:
> What the best practice would be for parallel non-Latin *heading* fields in *bibliographic* records in such cases--Hebrew and Yiddish found forms and what the cataloging rules tell us to use as the heading--is what we, and especially the Hebraica experts on this task force, can decide (is this also an issue for Arabic and Persian?). 
>
> Do we simply not provide the Hebrew equivalent (i.e., no parallel field) if a non-ALC/LC Romanized version is used as the established heading? This is something we need to think about and decide. We need to be careful. Joanna's example was a good example of how sort of free-form it could get. To me consistency is really important in our work for various reasons (consistent headings in the catalog for the user; cataloger time, etc.), and the ALA/LC Romanization tables are essentially our basis for consistency. 
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Miller, Caroline 
> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 1:07 PM
> To: 'D. Brooking'; Avetyan, Nora
> Cc: Joanna Dyla; Fletcher, Peter; [log in to unmask]; Julie Su; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: PCC Non Latin task force new member; timeline; update
>
> I know that with Hebrew and Yiddish there are different rules.  If there is a Romanized form in the piece, you are required to use that as your heading even if the entire piece is in Hebrew or Yiddish.  More often than not, the found form is not in standard Romanization per ALA-LC.  Most works published in Hebrew do not contain vowels.  There are often multiple ways to Romanize a name with the Israeli phone book being the reference source for modern Israeli authors.  Automated reverse Romanization from the ALA-LC Romanization table for Hebrew would introduce a lot of errors.
>
> I think this topic is critical for the new ALCTS non-roman group now being formed because they will be discussing a lot of policy issues.  I surely hope that OCLC will be represented on that group.  It would also be nice to have someone from this PCC group be a liaison to the ALCTS group.
>
> I believe that the charge of this group is to review existing PCC documentation and, by extension (IMO) LC documentation, for inconsistencies with an eye toward recommending more standardized practices across all the available non-roman scripts and other non-roman scripts as they become available in OCLC.  There is much to discuss about non-roman issues that have been ignored far too long but we can't do it all!  
>
> Caroline R. Miller
> Head of Monographic Cataloging 
> and Authority/Database Maintenance Sections
> UCLA Library Cataloging & Metadata Center
> BOX 957230 
> 11020 Kinross Ave.
> Los Angeles, CA 90095-7230
> E-mail:  [log in to unmask]
> Phone:  (310) 825-4446
> Fax:  (310) 794-9357
>  
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: D. Brooking [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 12:48 PM
> To: Avetyan, Nora
> Cc: Joanna Dyla; Fletcher, Peter; [log in to unmask]; Julie Su; [log in to unmask]; Miller, Caroline; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: PCC Non Latin task force new member; timeline; update
>
> This is complex.
>
> The record Joanna found has a mistake in it. The name heading was 
> established in its Russian form, so the non-Latin should be Russian as 
> well. (OK, at least according to the informal practice some Slavic 
> libraries are using, based roughly on CJK.) So if we as a group want to 
> characterize the example Joanna found as "wrong," we don't have to account 
> for it except to explain to people how not to make that mistake.
>
> There is a whole other can of worms about which form of the name to choose 
> as the established one. And for the former USSR it can be hard, since 
> Russian no longer dominates in all the republics as it once did. I don't 
> want to talk about that, though, that's NACO and AACR2 and I think beyond 
> our scope here.
>
> BUT, it does bring up, what is the purpose of the non-Latin parallel 
> fields in the bibs? I think I agree with Joanna that the place for 
> alternate non-Latin headings (like a correctly formulated Ukrainian form) 
> would be in the authority record. But we don't yet have a policy for 
> non-Latin cross-references in authority records. And PCC (LC?) didn't want 
> to designate a preferred non-Latin form (which would have been the obvious 
> candidate as the required parallel field to headings in bibs, had it 
> existed).
>
> I think mismatches happen more frequently with HAPY languages than 
> Cyrillic actually, where catalogers will provide the non-Latin form found 
> on the piece as a parallel access field, even if it doesn't match the 
> established romanized heading. Maybe someone can speak to that practice.
>
> ************
> Diana Brooking             (206) 685-0389
> Cataloging Librarian       (206) 685-8782 fax
> Suzzallo Library           [log in to unmask]
> University of Washington
> Box 352900
> Seattle WA  98195-2900
>
> On Fri, 8 May 2009, Avetyan, Nora wrote:
>
>   
>> Has Golovakha, Evgenii? Ivanovich written anything in Russian? I think the rule calls for establishing the name in the language of the book
>> that is being cataloged. I encounter the same problem with Armenian books, because during Soviet era they had to write works (especially
>> the scholarly works) in Russian to be published and to be read by more people. I have many Armenian authors with Russian transliteration
>> in 1xx and 4xx in Armenian form, even though majority of their works are in Armenian.
>>
>> I just had a thought, I am not sure.
>>
>>  
>>
>> From: Joanna Dyla [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 12:13 PM
>> To: Avetyan, Nora
>> Cc: Fletcher, Peter; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; Julie Su; [log in to unmask]; Miller, Caroline;
>> [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: PCC Non Latin task force new member; timeline; update
>>
>>  
>>
>> I have been having many of the same observations and concerns that everyone else who just spoke.  But then, I come across a bibliographic
>> records with parallel fields that raise so may questions. 
>>
>> Please check the following OCLC record no: 39812309, Suspil?stvo, shcho transformui?e?t?si?a? : $b dosvid sot?s?iolohichnoho monitorynhu v Ukrai?ni / $c
>> I?E?vhen Holovakha.
>> This title is in Ukrainian (apologies to those of you who do not work with Cyrillic languages) and the record has parallel Cyrillic fields
>> added.  However, there is a problem with the parallel 1xx.  This author's name has been established in Russian (that also, like Ukrainian,
>> uses Cyrillic script) and the transliterated name in 1xx is in Russian per n79118651, ARN 350318.  Information transcribed in other fields
>> in this record reflects the language of this item, which is Ukrainian.  So, while other parallel fields are given correctly in the
>> original language and script: Ukrainian/Cyrillic, the parallel 1xx heading has been wrongly "de-transliterated" into Ukrainian, even
>> though it is established and correctly given in 1xx in Russian. I hope that you can see on the OCLC record what I am trying to describe.
>> The form of the name in the parallel 1xx is "double" wrong: it is wrong as a Cyrillic equivalent of the transliterated Russian form in 1xx
>> (such form does not exist in any language) and also incorrect as an original Ukrainian name (see the usage in 245 $c). 
>>
>> This is only one example but this problem is frequent enough not to be ignored. Such records in Latin transliteration would also not
>> benefit from a programmatic (or by using a macro) de-transliteration.  It would be a real challenge to come up and agree on a solution to
>> handle such situations should we recommend adding parallel fields in bibliographic records for headings under authority control.  In the
>> above example, by adding a 4xx Cyrillic reference to the NAR, we would have recorded the usage in Ukrainian we found on the piece in hand
>> and facilitate discovery for the users searching in Ukrainian/Cyrillic.
>>
>>
>> Have a great weekend, everyone!  
>> --Joanna
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Joanna K. Dyla
>>
>> Head, Metadata Development Unit
>>
>> Metadata Department
>>
>> Stanford University Libraries
>>
>> 650-723-2529
>>
>> [log in to unmask] 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Avetyan, Nora wrote:
>>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>>  
>>
>> I think the problem is that there are many records that do not have original scripts alongside with the transliterated form in the bib.
>> records, thus OCLC auto-supply won?t be able to ?supply? the original script in the authority records. Also, in some cases, several ?ways? of
>> transliteration forms are used, based on a person?s passionate conviction, and that creates difficulty to generate original scripts from the
>> bib. records. So, I think Peter your concerns are still valid.
>>
>> Nora
>>
>>  
>>
>> From: Fletcher, Peter
>> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 10:26 AM
>> To: 'Joanna Dyla'
>> Cc: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; Julie Su; [log in to unmask]; Miller, Caroline; [log in to unmask];
>> [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; Avetyan, Nora; [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: RE: PCC Non Latin task force new member; timeline; update
>>
>>  
>>
>> Joanna, I think the discussion is within the scope, but I think we still need to add parallel fields to access points in bibliographic
>> records for the foreseeable future since many authority records headings don?t have non-Latin 4xx. I?m certainly open to discussing this
>> topic; perhaps I my concerns aren?t particularly valid now with the OCLC auto-supply of authority record 4xx (which were extracted from
>> bibliographic record equivalent fields).
>>
>>  
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> From: Joanna Dyla [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 1:34 PM
>> To: Fletcher, Peter
>> Cc: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; Julie Su; [log in to unmask]; Miller, Caroline; [log in to unmask];
>> [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; Avetyan, Nora; [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: PCC Non Latin task force new member; timeline; update
>>
>>  
>>
>> It may be a bit too early to ask specific questions but I will be on vacation from May 10th until May 27th (not sure about Internet
>> access), so let me ask now...
>>
>> My questions are about a choice of fields in bibliographic records that get parallel non-Latin script data.  When CONSER practice and
>> documentation on creating records with data in non-Latin scripts was introduced (2001/2003), an option of adding non-Latin script data to
>> authority records did not exist.  The BIBCO Core Record Standards: 9. Guidelines for Multiple Character Sets document states: "Whether the
>> non-Latin equivalents of headings are added as references to the authority record or not, they may be supplied in bibliographic records." 
>> Do we really need to continue adding non-Latin parallel controlled fields in bib records as well as in references on name authority
>> records (i.e., 4XX fields)?  Could we now rely on authority records with non-Latin references instead of on parallel control fields in
>> bibliographic records for discovery through non-Latin script searching?  Is this topic/discussion within the scope of this TF?
>>
>> --Joanna
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Joanna K. Dyla
>>
>> Head, Metadata Development Unit
>>
>> Metadata Department
>>
>> Stanford University Libraries
>>
>> 650-723-2529
>>
>> [log in to unmask] 
>>
>>
>> Fletcher, Peter wrote:
>>
>> PCC non-Latin task force,
>>
>>  
>>
>> We have a new member of the task force: Benjamin Abrahamse
>>
>> Head, Serials Cataloging Section
>>
>> Cataloging and Metadata Services
>>
>> MIT Libraries
>>
>>  
>>
>> His area of expertise is Hebrew and Arabic, so along with Nora Avetyan (Persian) I think we have almost all languages represented. I think
>> we are   light on Greek experience, but Robert mentioned that he has had some experience with Greek. I tend to think that issues that come
>> up with that language would be similar to those that might arise with Cyrillic since the two are closely related.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Also, if you all agree, I think we could stick with the current timeline: draft report by ALA Annual; final report by December. The draft
>> report could simply be a progress report with some kind of draft document (even incomplete if necessary), and I assume I would just be
>> reporting to CONCER/BIBCO at Large during ALA Annual, with some kind of written report I would give to Joan Schuitema, chair of SCS at
>> that time. Giving this draft report at this time is good in case the membership thinks we should alter our approach or not, so we don?t
>> waste too much time going in a wrong direction.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Currently I am trying to go through the current CEG appendices (and the short PCC document) to see how we might consolidate/generalize
>> certain instructions so they could apply to more than one script (as we already discussed), and to try to grasp how far we can go with
>> that generalization before getting into specific script/language instruction. I should be able to come up with some kind of introductory
>> draft (not the whole thing! Just the first part?) before too long that we can discuss, pull apart, add other ideas ? . This should be a good
>> starting point.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Let me know if you have any ideas about this approach.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Best, Peter
>>
>>   
>>
>>  
>>
>> Peter Fletcher
>>
>> Cyrillic Catalog Librarian and Metadata Specialist
>>
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>> Office: (310) 206-3927
>>
>> Fax: (310) 794-9357
>>
>> Cataloging & Metadata Center
>>
>> 11020 Kinross Avenue
>>
>> Box 957230
>>
>> Los Angeles, CA 90095-7230
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>>     

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 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
August 2019
July 2019
May 2019
April 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
October 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
December 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
June 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
July 2000

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager