Colleagues,
Caroline is correct that the policies and practices for applying non-roman
script at LC do vary by language/script to some extent.
She is also correct that the *general* principle applied in assigning Hebraic
script parallel fields for controlled access points (name headings, but not
topical subjects) is to supply what is it found on the item. The LC practice
for other languages/scripts involves constructing a parallel field which
mirrors the authorized heading in form and structure (including additions and
qualifiers.)
LC's consideration of existing policies and practices is taking into account
these various practices and the rationales for them as we seek to develop new
policies to govern the provision of non-roman data in authority records. Since
the provision of references is guided by AACR2, and many headings will have
references added in multiple scripts, there is a strong interest in developing
uniform policies.
There are many vexing issues to be addressed in order to establish these new
policies, including when and in which language or script to supply certain
qualifiers and additions to names.
One especially exciting development is exploration into developing automated
tools to pre-populate exisiting authority records with non-roman forms
extracted from bibliographic records.
As Caroline stated, your input--independently or collectively (through the AJL
Cataloging Committee)--is welcome, via the PCC or directly to LC.
Lenore
>>> "Miller, Caroline" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 02/01/07 3:51 PM >>>
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
