[Yulcat-l] [Yulibl] FW: [nonenglishaccess] Romanization in bibliographic records: draft report

Wed Nov 25 16:51:03 EST 2009

Keiko, Steven, all,

Personally, I hope we can do away with the 880 fields and then add linking subfield codes directly to the 'descriptive' MARC fields (e.g., 245, 260, 500), but not to controlled access points (like 100, 650, and 700), which, for Anglo-American catalogs, should remain English-only. 

If this is possible, then Model B would seem to me the more elegant approach. 

I don't disagree with the likely task force recommendation that we hold off on moving to Model B until more research is done on staffing and systems capabilities, more libraries have Unicode-compliant systems, and the multi-script NAF is better integrated into the discovery layer of library catalogs (i.e., so that NR script authority references can take the place of paired NR fields in the bibliographic record).

The report mentions that OCLC already includes a mix of Model A and Model B records (p. 10f), and I suspect the same will happen at Yale. If we can maintain the uniformity of controlled access points, though, I don't see this as huge problem (or least any huger than the kinds of split indexes we already have). 

The report also makes clear that Romanization, while initially a stop-gap measure in the early days of automation, still adds  a lot of value for non-native readers and for collocating words with multiple forms in the original but only one systematic Romanization (e.g. as mentioned on p. 7, full versus defective orthography of Hebrew words). Romanization also helps organize the catalog into a single unified browsable whole (at least in theory). 

Romanization should probably remain an option rather than a requirement since, as the report points out, we have a growing shortage of catalogers and cataloging funds available.

/ Daniel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: yulcat-l-bounces at mailman.yale.edu [mailto:yulcat-l-
> bounces at mailman.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Suzuki, Keiko
> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 10:19 AM
> To: Arakawa, Steven
> Cc: Catalog Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [Yulcat-l] [Yulibl] FW: [nonenglishaccess] Romanization in bibliographic
> records: draft report
> 
> Hi Steven,
> 
> Thank you very much for your prompt comments! It's a very good point that,
> everything is connected and implementing Model B for bib records would affect not
> only non-roman script cataloging.
> 
> For my personal opinion, implementing Model B doesn't mean only use one scripts, but
> we just don't use 880s and create parallel fields all the time. My ideal case scenario is
> that, descriptions are original scripts with some variants including romanization info in
> regular fields (i.e., 246 or repeatable 260?), and notes and access points are mainly
> the language of the institution's choice (our case is in English) with authority control
> intact, possibly with Virtual International Authority Files. That might still not be perfect,
> but we are trying to figure out the possibility.
> 
> In any case, it's still long way to go, I think, and we are probably not aware of every
> impact for the change yet. Thus, we would really like to hear broader library
> communities and users, etc. (That’s' why I sent it to yulib-l rather than yulcat list).
> 
> So I encourage everyone to send comments and feedbacks to the Working Group chair
> Robert Rendall (rr2205 at columbia.edu). The deadline is  Tuesday, Dec. 8, 2009 (sorry
> for the short time span).
> 
> Thank you so much. And "Happy Thanksgiving"!
> 
> - Keiko
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arakawa, Steven
> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 9:23 AM
> To: Suzuki, Keiko
> Cc: Catalog Discussion List
> Subject: RE: [Yulibl] FW: [nonenglishaccess] Romanization in bibliographic records:
> draft report
> 
> Keiko,
> 
> I don't work directly with non-roman script materials, but it's a little misleading to think
> that roman script catalogers can ignore the presence of non-roman script cataloging
> (and vice versa). I agree with the recommendation that the cataloging community stick
> with plan A. (parallel fields) for now. Roman script catalogers are generally tasked with
> cataloging translations and roman script history/criticism of non-roman works. How do
> we propose to handle uniform titles and subject headings if the work cataloged is in
> roman script? Without a heading and title in roman script, how do we determine shelf
> arrangement when cuttering around call numbers assigned to records that are entirely
> in non-roman script? Isn't this a FRBR related issue? By which I mean, a certain
> category of bibliographic records cannot be viewed in isolation from the other bib.
> records in a catalog. There has to be some way that all record relationships can be
> made transparent to users with different language backgrounds--I don't see how this is
> possible without some linguistic crosswalks. Another thing to consider is the impact on
> public libraries. I think the reality is that they will need to collect publications for their
> various and changing linguistic communities, and few  of them are going to have the
> wherewithal to train and employ specialist catalogers and acquisitions staff--they will
> rely on copy cataloging. But consider that if they are using vendor supplied
> transliteration, how will they be able to come close to matching an item to a record in
> the absence of a control number? What about videos in non-roman script languages?
> Would we want all the access points and description to be roman script only?
> 
> Steven Arakawa
> Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation
> Catalog & Metadata Services, SML, Yale University
> P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240
> (203)432-8286 steven.arakawa at yale.edu
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: yulibl-bounces at mailman.yale.edu [mailto:yulibl-bounces at mailman.yale.edu] On
> Behalf Of Suzuki, Keiko
> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 8:37 AM
> To: yulibl at mailman.yale.edu
> Subject: [Yulibl] FW: [nonenglishaccess] Romanization in bibliographic records: draft
> report
> 
> Dear Yale colleagues,
> Anybody who works with non-Latin script materials, please consider to give some
> feedback. Thank you.
> - Keiko
> 
> Keiko SUZUKI
> Japanese Catalog Librarian, East Asia Library
> Sterling Memorial Library
> P.O.Box 208240
> New Haven, CT 06520-8240
> Tel.: 203-432-2778 / Fax: 203-432-7231
> keiko.suzuki at yale.edu
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Rendall [mailto:rr2205 at columbia.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 5:24 PM
> To: nonenglishaccess at ala.org
> Subject: [nonenglishaccess] Romanization in bibliographic records: draft report
> 
> Colleagues,
> 
> Please forgive duplication and forward this announcement as appropriate.
> 
> The ALCTS Non-English Access Working Group on Romanization invites
> comment on its draft report, posted at:
> 
> http://connect.ala.org/node/88651
> 
> The Working Group was established by the ALCTS Non-English Access
> Steering Committee to examine the current use of romanized data in
> bibliographic and authority records and to recommend whether
> romanization is still needed in bibliographic records.  This draft
> report was developed by the Working Group in collaboration with the
> members of its open discussion forum on ALA Connect.
> 
> The Working Group will submit its final report to the Steering Committee
> on Dec. 15, 2009.  Comments are requested by Tuesday, Dec. 8, 2009 and
> may be sent to rr2205 at columbia.edu.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Robert Rendall
> Chair, ALCTS Non-English Access Working Group on Romanization
> 
> --
> Robert Rendall
> Principal Serials Cataloger
> Original and Special Materials Cataloging, Columbia University Libraries
> 102 Butler Library, 535 West 114th Street, New York, NY 10027
> tel.: 212 851 2449  fax: 212 854 5167
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Yulibl mailing list
> Yulibl at mailman.yale.edu
> http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/yulibl
> _______________________________________________
> Yulcat-l mailing list
> Yulcat-l at mailman.yale.edu
> http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/yulcat-l