LC-PCC PS for 9.2.2.5.3 seems to prefer an author’s preferred form over a cataloger created systematic Romanization.  This is certainly what non-librarian users of the catalog records would prefer.  Of course if we had separate catalogues for each script, it is a no-brainer that we would use the Arabic script form, which is what any user who reads Arabic would look under. But since we have a Roman-only NAF, it would be consistent to use the form that users would use, and that’s the form he uses in his works (and his Twitter account, etc.).

 

Aaron Kuperman, LC Law Cataloging Section.

This is not an official communication from my employer

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 11:16 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] 2 forms of an Arabic name/2 authority records?

 

If he’s writing in Arabic, NACO should use the ALA-LC Romanization, surely?

 

Regards

Richard

 

________________________

Richard Moore

Authority Control Team Manager

The British Library

                                                                       

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546104                                  

E-mail: [log in to unmask]      

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kuperman, Aaron
Sent: 03 November 2016 14:52
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] 2 forms of an Arabic name/2 authority records?

 

Should we be preferring a form of Romanization that the author appears to prefer (based on how Arabic is Romanized in French speaking countries, which as a Lebanese seems quite reasonable) rather than a cataloger generated Romanization?   It does seem to violate the principles of RDA to prefer a cataloger generated form of name (the systematic Romanization) rather than transcribing the one that appears in the author’s works.

 

Aaron Kuperman, LC Law Cataloging Section.

This is not an official communication from my employer

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dagher, Iman
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 6:57 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] 2 forms of an Arabic name/2 authority records?

 

This is a duplicate case, he is a Lebanese novelist; writes in Arabic; #  no2016134488   needs to be deleted  and Chouman, Hilal, ǂd 1982 will be added as a variant to # no2009100081 . The title in the 670 is in fact a translation from Arabic.

I will report this to LC and do the necessary enhancement.

Iman

*****************

 

[log in to unmask]" alt=UCLA-Logo>

Iman Dagher

Arabic & Islamic Studies Catalog Librarian

UCLA Library Cataloging & Metadata Center

Email: [log in to unmask]

Phone: (310) 825-8642

 

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Colby
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 3:44 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] 2 forms of an Arabic name/2 authority records?

 

I have found a name authority problem that is beyond my expertise. There are two authority records for the same person. They vary due to romanization of an Arabic name. No cross-references are given between the two. At the very least, I think that would be necessary. I cannot determine from RDA if there should in fact be two forms of the name, or just one.

These are the NARS:

010  no2009100081
1001 Shūmān, Hilāl, ǂd 1982-

010  no2016134488
1001 Chouman, Hilal, ǂd 1982-


Thanks for any help.

 

 

Michael Colby
[log in to unmask]


 
******************************************************************************************************************

Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk

The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html

Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabook

The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled

*****************************************************************************************************************

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the [log in to unmask] : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.

The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.

*****************************************************************************************************************

Think before you print