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:

"D. Brooking" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:46:31 -0700

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (171 lines)

David,

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
Box 352900
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.
> 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:
>
> ?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
> rule)?
>
> 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
> 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
> 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 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
>

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

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