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:

Ben Abrahamse <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:34:58 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (202 lines)

Yes, most Arabic texts are unvocalized, or rather lacking in short vowel 
signs ("unpointed" as a Hebraist might say).  The exceptions are Qur'an, 
Hadith, and some poetry, where knowing the exact vowels is considered 
essential.  So Arabic catalogers must supply them.  Since, in some 
cases, the meaning of a word hinges on the vocalization the operation of 
"romanizing" and of translating are not distinct.  Princeton's online 
Arabic cataloging manual 
(http://library.princeton.edu/departments/tsd/acm/descr/roman.html) 
provides a list of standard dictionaries for reference.


Benjamin Abrahamse
Head, Serials Cataloging Section
Cataloging and Metadata Services
MIT Libraries
[log in to unmask]



D. Brooking wrote:
> CJK and HAPY folks have years of experience with non-Latin. As a 
> Cyrillic person, I am a newbie. The LC White Paper portrays the HAPY 
> group (right-to-left scripts) as more problematic, just because their 
> bib headings tend to vary more. I don't know if we can solve those 
> issues or not, but it might be worth looking into.
>
> For example, Arabic... I have spoken with some Arabic catalogers that 
> I know, and they say that it is true they follow standard 
> transliteration, but only up to a point. For instance, romanization 
> includes short vowels, but short vowels are not included in the 
> non-Latin script. And dates and other qualifiers are left off because 
> of technical difficulties with keying multidirectional data. So in 
> practice they aren't following the CEG appendix to the letter.
>
> (Do Arabic catalogers on our group agree with what I was told?)
>
>
>
>
> ************
> 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 Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Fletcher, Peter wrote:
>
>> Diana, good point about making suggestions/guidelines for HAPY, which 
>> of course the language specialists on our task force can help to add 
>> to the special section if we all (or a majority) agree to go in that 
>> direction. Of course, such special guidelines would have to be 
>> "standard" in their own way, and I am not sure how you might 
>> establish such standards that allow considerable variation.  I 
>> appears, however, that at least Arabic--according to the CEG 
>> appendix--are not allowing the freedom to provide non-Latin forms 
>> based on forms that don't have a one-to-one correlation with the 
>> established form (i.e., are not established according the ALC-LC 
>> transliteration tables).
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On 
>> Behalf Of D. Brooking
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 1:08 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Question: Headings: non Latin in qualifiers and 
>> for Latinized forms
>>
>> I am in favor of #1.
>>
>> We could try getting closer to #2 by making some kind of suggestions 
>> that
>> would help non-Latin headings for HAPY be more consistent. But I don't
>> know enough about the area to suggest specifics. (See LC's White 
>> Paper on
>> Non-Latin in Authority Records for their description of HAPY practice 
>> for
>> bib headings.)
>>
>> I am not in favor of #3. We do not yet even have rules for how to add
>> non-Latin references to authority records. PCC practice does not yet
>> require non-Latin references in authority records. We just aren't ready
>> for #3.
>>
>>
>>
>> ************
>> 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 Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Fletcher, Peter wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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! J)
>>>
>>> 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

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