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 

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.

> 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...?)


> 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
> 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."
>> 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,
>>>> tel. (+4)021 317 90 72; fax (+4)021 317 90 64

Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
[log in to unmask]
ph.: 510-540-7596   skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234