I took a cataloging class this past semester, and the most basic takeaway for me was that bibliographic records should always serve the user. In other words, when creating a record, it's important to think about how the entered data may or may not make the record accessible to the user, whether the user is a professional librarian or a typical library patron.
The accessibility of a record is complicated (in English-language cataloging) by the introduction of non-roman scripts, such as Japanese, Arabic, Chinese, Korean, Hebrew, etc. (The most common non-roman scripts are often referred to by the acronym JACKPHY). As far as I've seen, catalogers use a transliteration of title, author, etc. in roman script for many of the access points (such as fields 100, 245, 264, 700, etc.). This transliteration is crucial to the 'findability' of the record, and it also opens a lot of room for a variety of pronunciations.
There are, of course, rules of romanization for each language and script that are published by the ALA and the Library of Congress to help standardize transliteration. But complications arise even while following the published standards. Languages are dynamic, pronunciations vary across time and space (especially with Hebrew and Yiddish words that so often lack written vowels). I have struggled to balance the different duties of a cataloger -- to create a user-friendly record that will be as accessible as possible, to follow rules and standards of romanization, and to transcribe information from an item just as it appears (even if it is misleading!).
The accessibility of a record is complicated (in English-language cataloging) by the introduction of non-roman scripts, such as Japanese, Arabic, Chinese, Korean, Hebrew, etc. (The most common non-roman scripts are often referred to by the acronym JACKPHY). As far as I've seen, catalogers use a transliteration of title, author, etc. in roman script for many of the access points (such as fields 100, 245, 264, 700, etc.). This transliteration is crucial to the 'findability' of the record, and it also opens a lot of room for a variety of pronunciations.
There are, of course, rules of romanization for each language and script that are published by the ALA and the Library of Congress to help standardize transliteration. But complications arise even while following the published standards. Languages are dynamic, pronunciations vary across time and space (especially with Hebrew and Yiddish words that so often lack written vowels). I have struggled to balance the different duties of a cataloger -- to create a user-friendly record that will be as accessible as possible, to follow rules and standards of romanization, and to transcribe information from an item just as it appears (even if it is misleading!).
Comments
Post a Comment