All, I attended the joint CONSER/BIBCO session at ALA Midwinter in Seattle where Ann Della Porta of LC mentioned the ability to add non-roman data to authority records in both Voyager (LC's ILS) and in OCLC. Now a policy decision will need to be made.
I want to point out that there are differences in practices among the non-roman cataloging teams at LC with regard to what original script data is added to their bib records. For example, in Chinese records catalogers set up the parallel 1xx field for the original Chinese script to exactly reflect the authorized romanized form in the 1xx, including the $q and the date. From what I remember of LC's Hebrew records, the original Hebrew 1xx is transcribed as found on the piece (please correct me if I'm wrong). Obviously, there needs to be some harmonization and coordination among LC non-roman cataloging teams and in widespread NACO practice. I'm happy to take any recommendations from the AJL Cataloging Committee directly to the PCC Policy Committee (I'm a member) so that the PCC Standing Committee on Standards can make an informed recommendation to CPSO. Please let me know how I can help. Caroline Miller Chair, PCC Standing Committee on Training and former member of the AJL Cataloging Committee Caroline R. Miller Head, Monographic Cataloging and Authority/Database Maintenance Sections UCLA Library Cataloging & Metadata Center Charles E. Young Research Library [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lenore Bell Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 12:00 PM To: heb-naco@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: AJL 2007 call for speakers / non-roman practices Daniel and colleagues: LC's Hebraica catalogers have maintained a consistent policy with regard to applying Hebrew script fields in our original, full-level cataloging since we began cataloging Hebraic monographs in RLIN in 1987. LC's subsequent adoption of the core standard and acceptance of PCC records and cataloging copy from other sources with limited modification resulted in LC records which do not conform to our practices for original, full-level cataloging in many areas--one of which being the application of non-roman parallel fields. I understand how one might interpret such variation as having "no policy," but a better description would be that we have multiple policies, the application of which depends on the level of cataloging treatment. With LC's Unicode upgrade, we began to examine our policies and practices for applying non-roman script parallel fields (for all JACKPHY languages) and to consider how these policies should inform the new policies we establish for adding non-roman data to authority records. Indeed, the inclusion of non-roman data in authority records, as was mentioned at AJL last year, will provide better access to our non-roman bibliographic records than we currently have. The issue of how to construct a parallel Hebrew script 100 or 700 in the bib record, for example, will be moot. Instead of having to select one Hebrew script form to be added to the bib record, we will likely be providing all found variant Hebrew forms in the authority record. This practice will streamline the cataloging process (each Hebrew script variant only needs to be added once to the NAR) and will enhance access by linking all Hebrew script variants to every bib record through the controlled access point. The institutions who have been cataloging Hebraic materials in RLIN have been very aware over the years of the differing practices maintained among us, and perhaps an effort should have been undertaken years ago to establish some best practices for applying non-roman parallel fields. I can understand how those working in OCLC, fairly new to Hebraic script cataloging, might be surprised by the variation in practice from institution to institution that they have encountered. With the prospect of non-roman data in authorities on the horizon, this is the optimal time to have a conversation about how to construct non-roman references in NARs (and possibly even SH's), and how non-roman references in authorities will change our provision of non-roman data in bibliographic records. There are many issues to consider in developing the fine points of such new policies, and it will be necessary to have broad input since we all use and contribute to the NAF. I am hoping that it will not be long before we will have these new policies in place, so I do not see any advantage to discussing our old policies since it would not be practicable to change them in the interim. Lenore >>> Yossi Galron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 02/01/07 12:35 AM >>> Daniel, I am ready to do it: I am getting every day more and more angry and frustrated from LC's policy (or no policy) of adding Hebrew script to bibliographic records. I will write an official memo to LC with copies to the AJL Cataloging Committee regarding LC practice ahead of time, so that we will have a basis for discussion. I call for uniformity and common sense in Hebrew script cataloging. I tried to do it last summer in Boston, but I don't think I succeeded. Yossi At 11:49 PM 1/31/2007, you wrote: Dear group, I'm still looking for one or two additional panelists for the cataloging session at AJL 2007. While topics dealing with Romanization and Hebrew grammar are particularly welcome this year, I'd like to know about any cataloging-related topics on your mind. Also: I'm gathering my notes from last month's ALA meeting so I can send you an update on RDA, etc. More on this soon. Daniel