No that is ok. It was my intent to build on the current documentation. I am working on what should be a general part of the document, with rules that can apply to more than one language, and I am doing this by comparing the two CONSER appendices to see where the differences lie between those documents (i.e., which are script/language specific and which could apply to both). I hope I will be able to extrapolate from this exercise which rules can be applied to all available languages/scripts.
I want to apologize if my message below make me sound too pushy. That’s not what I intended. Seeing our discussion about different practices, I thought it would be easier if we have a draft built upon existing PCC non-Latin documentations in hand. So we can map and mark the points we discussed on the draft and keep track of them. If it is too complicated, we can come back after comb through and agree or disagree on non-complicated points.
I know that you said that you will put together the first draft. But I also see it’s very tough for you right now since you are also writing 13 evaluations. So I am wondering that if you wouldn’t mind to share whatever you have made progress so far, we can add and keep it going, and make notes about questions or practices mentioned along the discussion. Or if you have started yet, I can put one together simply by borrowing what’s on the CONSER appendices. It won’t be a good one, but something to get it rolling.
I totally agree with you that we have to put together a draft first, then we can discuss what we agree or disagree on the general guidelines/principles we put together, what practice among non-Latin language cataloging is unique and exceptional that should continue to keep or drop. I also like Diana’s idea of having in-person meeting in Chicago during ALA, or schedule teleconference if in-person meeting is not possible for everyone. So we can discuss whatever draft we come up together.
Yes, a really interesting case here. This is exactly why we need to come up with some rules where there are none at present.
We (the task force) will probably come to agree and give instruction that the cataloger only create truly parallel fields—that is parallel to the heading at hand, and in this case, a Russian (transliterated) heading. The scope of our task force is only the bibliographic record, but it is obviously helpful for catalogers to create whatever variants in the authority record that would assist the user, and in this case, 400s in both Russian and Ukrainian Cyrillic forms would be helpful.
I have been occupied for the last week and now must start writing 13 (good luck number) evaluations, so I will do my best to keep the discussion going and work on a prototype, beginning of a draft (or just concepts for the draft—concepts like the one above: use only truly parallel fields for a heading at hand) we can start to tear apart or agree on.
I have been having many of the same observations and concerns that
everyone else who just spoke. But then, I come across a bibliographic
records with parallel fields that raise so may questions.
Please check the following OCLC record no: 39812309, Suspilʹstvo, shcho transformui︠e︡tʹsi︠a︡ : $b dosvid sot︠s︡iolohichnoho monitorynhu v Ukraïni / $c I︠E︡vhen Holovakha.
This title is in Ukrainian (apologies to those of you who do not work with Cyrillic languages) and the record has parallel Cyrillic fields added. However, there is a problem with the parallel 1xx. This author's name has been established in Russian (that also, like Ukrainian, uses Cyrillic script) and the transliterated name in 1xx is in Russian per n79118651, ARN 350318. Information transcribed in other fields in this record reflects the language of this item, which is Ukrainian. So, while other parallel fields are given correctly in the original language and script: Ukrainian/Cyrillic, the parallel 1xx heading has been wrongly "de-transliterated" into Ukrainian, even though it is established and correctly given in 1xx in Russian. I hope that you can see on the OCLC record what I am trying to describe. The form of the name in the parallel 1xx is "double" wrong: it is wrong as a Cyrillic equivalent of the transliterated Russian form in 1xx (such form does not exist in any language) and also incorrect as an original Ukrainian name (see the usage in 245 $c).
This is only one example but this problem is frequent enough not to be ignored. Such records in Latin transliteration would also not benefit from a programmatic (or by using a macro) de-transliteration. It would be a real challenge to come up and agree on a solution to handle such situations should we recommend adding parallel fields in bibliographic records for headings under authority control. In the above example, by adding a 4xx Cyrillic reference to the NAR, we would have recorded the usage in Ukrainian we found on the piece in hand and facilitate discovery for the users searching in Ukrainian/Cyrillic.
Have a great weekend, everyone!
Joanna K. Dyla
Head, Metadata Development Unit
Stanford University Libraries
Avetyan, Nora wrote:
I think the problem is that there are many records that do not have original scripts alongside with the transliterated form in the bib. records, thus OCLC auto-supply won’t be able to “supply” the original script in the authority records. Also, in some cases, several “ways” of transliteration forms are used, based on a person’s passionate conviction, and that creates difficulty to generate original scripts from the bib. records. So, I think Peter your concerns are still valid.
Joanna, I think the discussion is within the scope, but I think we still need to add parallel fields to access points in bibliographic records for the foreseeable future since many authority records headings don’t have non-Latin 4xx. I’m certainly open to discussing this topic; perhaps I my concerns aren’t particularly valid now with the OCLC auto-supply of authority record 4xx (which were extracted from bibliographic record equivalent fields).
It may be a bit too early to ask specific questions but I will be on
vacation from May 10th until May 27th (not sure about Internet access), so let
me ask now...
My questions are about a choice of fields in bibliographic records that get parallel non-Latin script data. When CONSER practice and documentation on creating records with data in non-Latin scripts was introduced (2001/2003), an option of adding non-Latin script data to authority records did not exist. The BIBCO Core Record Standards: 9. Guidelines for Multiple Character Sets document states: "Whether the non-Latin equivalents of headings are added as references to the authority record or not, they may be supplied in bibliographic records." Do we really need to continue adding non-Latin parallel controlled fields in bib records as well as in references on name authority records (i.e., 4XX fields)? Could we now rely on authority records with non-Latin references instead of on parallel control fields in bibliographic records for discovery through non-Latin script searching? Is this topic/discussion within the scope of this TF?
Joanna K. Dyla
Head, Metadata Development Unit
Stanford University Libraries
Fletcher, Peter wrote:
PCC non-Latin task force,
We have a new member of the task force: Benjamin Abrahamse
Head, Serials Cataloging Section
Cataloging and Metadata Services
His area of expertise is Hebrew and Arabic, so along with Nora Avetyan (Persian) I think we have almost all languages represented. I think we are light on Greek experience, but Robert mentioned that he has had some experience with Greek. I tend to think that issues that come up with that language would be similar to those that might arise with Cyrillic since the two are closely related.
Also, if you all agree, I think we could stick with the current timeline: draft report by ALA Annual; final report by December. The draft report could simply be a progress report with some kind of draft document (even incomplete if necessary), and I assume I would just be reporting to CONCER/BIBCO at Large during ALA Annual, with some kind of written report I would give to Joan Schuitema, chair of SCS at that time. Giving this draft report at this time is good in case the membership thinks we should alter our approach or not, so we don’t waste too much time going in a wrong direction.
Currently I am trying to go through the current CEG appendices (and the short PCC document) to see how we might consolidate/generalize certain instructions so they could apply to more than one script (as we already discussed), and to try to grasp how far we can go with that generalization before getting into specific script/language instruction. I should be able to come up with some kind of introductory draft (not the whole thing! Just the first part?) before too long that we can discuss, pull apart, add other ideas … . This should be a good starting point.
Let me know if you have any ideas about this approach.
Cyrillic Catalog Librarian and Metadata Specialist
Office: (310) 206-3927
Fax: (310) 794-9357
Cataloging & Metadata Center
11020 Kinross Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90095-7230