RE: AJL 2007 call for speakers / non-roman practices
I am in favor of making the Hebrew into a 400 field. This way the Hebrew form will point to the Roman form that has been chosen. If you do it as a 100 field the result will be that the Hebrew field will coexist but never point to the Roman form. If so, why add it? The 100 parallel fields should only be used in bibliographical records. My 2 cents. Bernard Rabenstein -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Miller, Caroline Sent: Thu, February 01, 2007 3:51 PM To: heb-naco@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu Cc: Carolyn Sturtevant Subject: RE: AJL 2007 call for speakers / non-roman practices 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,
Fw: [PCCTRNG] Changes in DCM now available on CDS website]
NACO catalogers, From CPSO, FYI. -- FYI - CDS just announced that update 1 of 2007 is now available in PDF format for downloading or printing off the CDS website here are the relevant changes that NACO trainers need to aware of: LCRI 2006, update 4: 24.4B - Revised to allow the use of qualifiers as additions to initialisms and acronyms when there is a conflict between a 4XX and a 1XX. 26.1 - Revised to add information on qualifying initialisms and acronyms when there is a conflict between a 1XX and a 4XX. Descriptive Cataloging Manual: Z1 Name Series Authority Records (2007, Update no. 1): 008/32 - Revised to add guidance to consult 670 section for addition of paired 670 fields to reflect undifferentiated status. 670 - Revised to provide guidance for creating paired 670 fields to provide eye-readable clues when status of NAR (008/32=b) is coded undifferentiated -- Joanna K. Dyla Head, MARC Unit Cataloging & Metadata Services Stanford University Libraries 650-723-2529 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: AJL 2007 call for speakers / non-roman practices
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 variant
RE: AJL 2007 call for speakers / non-roman practices
Dear Caroline, Lenore, Yossi, others, Thank you for your thoughtful comments on this important issue. I, too, have been assuming that Hebrew script "variants" will now (or soon) be recorded in the authority file, with the option for individual libraries to 'flip' the romanized heading to an original script alternate heading (e.g., 7xx rather than 4xx) when that option better serves the needs of a particular user community. I certainly would like to address this subject at our Committee meeting in June. Caroline or Lenore: any chance one of you would be willing to prepare a summary of the key considerations for Committee review? Otherwise, I'll work something up myself, but I realize we're going to have a very full agenda this year. Yossi: when you submit your paper proposal, maybe you can use Lenore's comments to help frame your proposed argument? Of course, you don't have to agree with what she says, but it would be good at least to anticipate her objections. Thanks. Daniel At 03:51 PM 2/1/2007, Miller, Caroline wrote: 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 the
RE: AJL 2007 call for speakers / non-roman practices
Daniel and colleagues, I will inquire with CPSO regarding the timetable for developing the policies and implementing non-roman data in authority records, to get some idea about where the process will stand in June. In the meantime, I'll be happy to share with the group any information I can about the process, as it becomes available. The text below was a response to Caroline's comments, which I sent last night, but didn't seem to post to the list. Apologies for any duplication. * 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 >>> Daniel Lovins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 02/02/07 9:40 AM >>> Dear Caroline, Lenore, Yossi, others, Thank you for your thoughtful comments on this important issue. I, too, have been assuming that Hebrew script "variants" will now (or soon) be recorded in the authority file, with the option for individual libraries to 'flip' the romanized heading to an original script alternate heading (e.g., 7xx rather than 4xx) when that option better serves the needs of a particular user community. I certainly would like to address this subject at our Committee meeting in June. Caroline or Lenore: any chance one of you would be willing to prepare a summary of the key considerations for Committee review? Otherwise, I'll work something up myself, but I realize we're going to have a very full agenda this year. Yossi: when you submit your paper proposal, maybe you can use Lenore's comments to help frame your proposed argument? Of course, you don't have to agree with what she says, but it would be good at least to anticipate her objections. Thanks. Daniel At 03:51 PM 2/1/2007, Miller, Caroline wrote: >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
