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  July 2009

PCCTG1 July 2009

Subject:

Re: Question: Headings: non Latin in qualifiers and for Latinized forms

From:

David W Reser <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:55:49 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (151 lines)

At least for now, I agree with Keiko and Diana with leaning towards #1. 
We're still working on the survey for PCC participants based on the
issues in the White Paper (it's slow going-- have completed sections on
personal names so far, still have geographic, corporate and uniform
titles to go) that will elicit information from catalogers on
establishing the best practices for name authority references in
non-Latin scripts.  While these practices will establish rules for
authority references and not specifically parallel heading fields in
bibliographic records, they may inform the discussion on bibliographic
practices, or even if there should be parallel headings on bib records
at all-- however, I don't think we're really at the point that we can
answer that question yet, which is why I favor the status quo.  Although
I understand my boss has thought outloud about just having authority
references, I'm not convinced we're ready to go there yet (for example,
as I understand it, references from authority records are not used in
WorldCat Local, so if the non-Latin data isn't in the bib record it
won't be available-- this my be an old understanding on my part that
someone using WCL could confirm).  

I think we also still want to think in the long run about whether it is
desirable to separate out the non-Latin heading data to only
authorities: for example, many Chinese names that use distinct Chinese
ideographs but are all romanized to the same form result in many 4XXs in
Chinese in the authority record; if you weren't able to use the parallel
Chinese form for your particular person in the bib record, you wouldn't
be able to tell in the bib record which of the several people covered by
the romanized form you were talking about.  Also, at a point when many
bib records are being extracted from the "catalog" where they might live
(without the supporting authority records with their references) for all
kinds of interesting Web applications, as well as traditional extracts
for citations, new books lists, etc., pulling the non-Latin data from
the bib records may not be an ideal situation.

There may be an opportunity in the future to reign in practices in bib
records for headings, but I'm not sure we're there yet.
Dave
P.S. I've only just started to input my comments into the GoogleDocs
posting, but it is kind of slow going-- apologies for that.


>>> "Suzuki, Keiko" <[log in to unmask]> 7/28/2009 5:17 PM >>>
I agree with Diana that I'm leaning towards #1 and not favor of #3. We
are in transitional stage: RDA is coming, and VIAF project is
progressing * in near future, we might move more to FRBRized record
structure of work, expression, manifestation and item, not authority,
bibliographic, and holding of MARC. I don't think it's time to make any
drastic changes. The big one is coming soon, anyway.

And in one way, my very personal idea that, in an ideal world, we could
have only a heading of original script names on actual item, which might
not be the established form of the heading. However, it doesn't matter
authorized form or cross-references, as long as the original script
heading is in the authority record, we could link the original script
heading to all the variant headings of the same name and the records
contained them seamlessly if we would have a perfect authority control
system. Sorry for a long mumbling, but so I kind of like the idea to
have on-item non-Latin headings whether standardized or not.

The other thing is that, many of our colleagues are not cataloging
specialists, and might not to have authorization to create and update
authority records. One way to add access to non-Latin form without
authority records is, of course adding in bib records. Yes, it's not
really a solution, but sometime that's all they could do.

Finally, I just looked at the authority record for Confucius. Since
this is English name, not standardized form, we don't add non-Latin
heading. Yet, his name in scripts are in cross-references: **, ***,
**.Maybe it's OK to add it as a parallel heading to the record if
it is on item?

100:0_: **.
100:0_: Confucius.

Or that's not the way to do for the case of Hebrew, etc.?

- Keiko

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Fletcher, Peter
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 3:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: [PCCTG1] Question: Headings: non Latin in qualifiers and for
Latinized forms

All, this of course,  is one of our most difficult issues to deal with.
To quote our document thus far:

for headings:

ďFor subjects and headings fields, non-Latin equivalents are given
only for headings and parts of headings that have received standard1
Romanization. Do not supply non-Latin data for cataloger supplied
qualifiers, or headings and parts of headings established in a
conventional, Latin-style. (See section 3 for exceptions to this
rule)Ē

Note my addition in bold/parenthesis. This represents essentially the
status quo, since PCC Hebraica catalogers are currently providing
parallel fiends in bib records for non-standard forms. (remember this
document is aimed at PCC catalogers)

The options are:

1.    Status quo (i.e., allowing exceptions to some languages, e.g.,
Hebrew)

2.    Eliminate any exceptions (i.e., reign in those renegades and have
them conform! *)

3.    Recommend adding parallel fields for non-Latin script only to
authority records
Letís look at 2: Con: We may create guidelines that eliminate the
exceptions, but would they follow them? Would they stop doing what they
are used to doing and think is valuable or necessary (depending on local
ILS) to the bib record? Pro: more standardized approach to the data and
possible better machine manipulation if the headings are based on the
standard.

And 3: Con: A similar problem as with 2: would they see the wisdom of
this approach and stop adding data to records they consider valuable or
even necessary for their local systems? Pro: Definitely more standard
for the bib record, since only descriptive date found on the item would
be transcribed into the bib record; all variant forms beyond even the
standard could be added to the authority record.

And 1, the status quo: Pro: most PCC catalogers would follow our
guidelines since that is close to what they are doing and see as
valuable or necessary, and it would provide a kind of standard approach
for a large part of the bib record that would at least be documented in
the guidelines. Con: bib records will have some non-standard non-Latin
data in their headings fields.

If you could all respond soon I would appreciate it, since I have to
have a preliminary report in within the few weeks. I am asking Joan
Schuitema if our deadline could be pushed to mid-August. I think this is
reasonable, since our final report isnít even due until Dec., but we
do have to  have time for feedback from our preliminary report that will
obviously steer the direction of our final report.

best, Peter

Peter Fletcher
Cyrillic Catalog Librarian and Metadata Specialist
[log in to unmask] 
Office: (310) 206-3927
Fax: (310) 794-9357
UCLA 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

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