LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for MODS Archives


MODS Archives

MODS Archives


MODS@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

MODS Home

MODS Home

MODS  August 2009

MODS August 2009

Subject:

Re: <extension> practice

From:

Jon Stroop <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 18 Aug 2009 09:51:06 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (177 lines)

Karen Coyle wrote:
> Jon Stroop wrote:
>> Language and script are definitely separate beasts.  Karen, are there 
>> situations where the combination of @lang and @script (we're using 
>> ISO 15924 codes for scripts here) don't cover what you are pointing 
>> out?  Probably so, and I've just been lucky thus far.
>
> It's not a question of language v. script, but titles that use more 
> than one script. You can have a title in Latin script with one word 
> using the Greek script. (Or one letter - lamda calculus, as an 
> example). Japanese is often written combining characters from the 3 
> different Japanese scripts, and it appears that they now throw in 
> Western words using Latin script.
>
> Using Unicode (which I hope we all are!), it's generally considered 
> unnecessary to mark scripts because Unicode handles them all, even 
> mixed together, smoothly. So if you think about what you are wishing 
> to say about your titles, it's not the script that they are in, but 
> whether you wish to display the original title, regardless of script, 
> or a transliterated substitute. If, in your library, you transliterate 
> to Latin script, then you may be able to identify that through the 
> transliteration standard or scheme you use.
It's not just about whether or not to display a given version of the 
title, but how to display it, i.e. left to right, left anchored or right 
to left, right anchored, fonts, etc.

Also, I wonder if there isn't some judgment involved in determining the 
script.  If a title were mostly in a particular script, and a user would 
first and foremost need to understand that script to understand the 
content of the resource, wouldn't it be most useful to say that field is 
in that script?  It doesn't fit well with /my/ literalist tendencies, 
but from a user perspective is the script for 
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/223938445 anything other than Chinese?

Maybe the name of the attribute should be primaryScript....

>
>>
>> Regarding the transliteration, I agree with Dan, the snippet I sent 
>> around is probably too Latin-centric.  But, as far as one version 
>> being privileged over the other, shouldn't one version (whether 
>> transcribed from the resource or taken from the preferred form in an 
>> authority file; probably in the native script) be privileged?  Maybe 
>> not, I really don't know, but would like to hear.
>
> You may want to privilege the original; you may want to privilege the 
> transliteration, depending on the needs of your users. In any case, 
> you need to know which is the title from the piece. In an ideal world, 
> the title proper, as determined by the cataloging rules, would always 
> represent the piece, and any other titles would be identified and 
> characterized. It hasn't been done that way in our cataloging past 
> because we didn't have a way to represent the titles except through 
> transliteration. I think this past practice has confused the issue, 
> because we allowed transliterated titles to be entered as if they were 
> the "real" title of the work, and we didn't code them as 
> transliterations. (Hmmm, I wonder how RDA handles this...?)
>
> kc
>
>> Also, to fuel the fire against my original suggestion a bit more, 
>> it's not good design for attributes to provide metadata about other 
>> attributes, so having (@transliteration or @romanization) and 
>> @transliterationStandard on the same element isn't the right way to 
>> go either.
>>
>> On the other hand, presumably version elements would be repeatable, 
>> and could easily be misused.  What about something more specific:
>>
>> <name type="personal" authority="naf" lang="ara">
>>   <namePart>
>>       <value script="Arab">طوسي، نصير الدين محمد بن محمد</value>
>>       <transliteration script="Latn" standard="?">Ṭūsī, Naṣīr al-Dīn 
>> Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad</transliteration>
>>   </namePart>
>>   <role>
>>      <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="code">aut</roleTerm>
>>   </role>
>> </name>
>>
>> "value" may not be the right name for that tag, but I don't like 
>> "transcribed" or "preferred" either.  Ditto for title and note.
>>
>> -Jon
>>
>> Jon Stroop
>> Metadata Analyst
>> C-17-D2 Firestone Library
>> Princeton University
>> Princeton, NJ 08544
>>
>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>> Phone: (609)258-0059
>> Fax: (609)258-0441
>>
>> http://diglib.princeton.edu
>> http://diglib.princeton.edu/ead
>>
>>
>>
>> Karen Coyle wrote:
>>> I'm not sure the "scripts" solution works. You can have a title that 
>>> is a mixture of scripts. It seems to me that the distinction is 
>>> between transcribed (from the piece) and transliterated.
>>>
>>> From Unicode page on supported scripts:
>>>
>>> "In many cases, a single script may serve to write tens or even 
>>> hundreds of languages (e.g., the Latin script). In other cases only 
>>> one language employs a particular script (e.g., Hangul, which is 
>>> used only for the Korean language). The writing systems for some 
>>> languages may also make use of more than one script; for example, 
>>> Japanese traditionally makes use of the Han (Kanji), Hiragana, and 
>>> Katakana scripts, and modern Japanese usage commonly mixes in the 
>>> Latin script as well."
>>> http://www.unicode.org/standard/supported.html
>>>
>>> kc
>>>
>>>
>>> Dot Porter wrote:
>>>> I second Dan's suggestion - using an element with @script attribute
>>>> for each original/transliteration of a name (vel sim.). Not only does
>>>> this not privilege one 'version' over the other, it also allows for
>>>> more than two 'versions', multiple possible transliterations into
>>>> scripts other than the roman script.
>>>>
>>>> Dot
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Dan Matei<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>  
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Jon Stroop <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:46:42 -0400
>>>>>
>>>>> I would prefer:
>>>>>
>>>>> <name type="personal" authority="naf" script="Arab" lang="ara">
>>>>>    <namePart>
>>>>>        <version script="Arabic">طوسي، نصير الدين محمد بن 
>>>>> محمد</version>
>>>>>        <version script="Latin" transliterationStandard="?">Ṭūsī, 
>>>>> Naṣīr al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad</version>
>>>>>    </namePart>
>>>>>    <role>
>>>>>       <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="code">aut</roleTerm>
>>>>>    </role>
>>>>> </name>
>>>>>
>>>>> In this way: a) no (even more) privileged position for the Latin 
>>>>> script, b) the transliteration standard is revealed.
>>>>>
>>>>>  
>>>>>> -Jon
>>>>>>       
>>>>> Dan Matei
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan Matei, director
>>>>> CIMEC - Institutul de Memorie Culturala [Institute for Cultural 
>>>>> Memory]
>>>>> Piata Presei Libere nr. 1, CP 33-90
>>>>> 013701 București [Bucharest], Romania, www.cimec.ro
>>>>> tel. (+4)021 317 90 72; fax (+4)021 317 90 64
>>>>> www.cimec.ro
>>>>>
>>>>>     
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>
>>
>>
>

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 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
June 2019
May 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager