Your statements about WorldCat Local are still true. And I have heard
nothing that indicates OCLC is planning any WCL development in that area
in the foreseeable future.
Diana Brooking (206) 685-0389
Cataloging Librarian (206) 685-8782 fax
Suzzallo Library [log in to unmask]
University of Washington
Seattle WA 98195-2900
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, David W Reser wrote:
> 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.
> 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:
> ?For 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
> 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.,
> 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
> Let?s 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
> 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 isn?t 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