2000 Annual Meeting
Thursday, March 9, 2000
3:40 p.m.-5:30 p.m.
Town & Counrty Resort and Convention Center
San Diego, CA
- Quality & Access Control in Cataloging Today (Abraham J. Yu, UC Irvine)
- Program for Cooperative Cataloging (Brian E.C. Schottlaender, UC San Diego)
- A Collaborative Project on Chinese Name Authority Control: The HKCAN Model (Kylie Chan, Lingnan University, Hong Kong)
- Library of Congress Report: Status Report on Pinyin Conversion (Philip Melzer)
- RLG Report (Karen Smith-Yoshimura, RLG)
- OCLC Report (Glenn Patton, OCLC)
- Pinyin Conversion: What now? (Karl Lo, UC San Diego)
I. Welcome and Introductory Remarks (Abraham J. Yu, UC Irvine)
As the Chair of the Committee, Abraham welcomed everyone and introduced the Committee projects, Committee members, as well as the Committee web site.
(Click here for the PowerPoint version)
II. Cataloging Issues
1. Quality & Access Control in Cataloging Today (Abraham J. Yu, UC Irvine)
The quality of cataloging is not well controlled today, because
- Most libraries emphasize productivity as opposed to quality cataloging
- Lack of well trained and experienced catalogers
- Most catalogers accept cataloging copy as is
- Catalogers are too busy to review cataloging copies
- Cataloging reference tools are not readily available
- Catalogers are not encouraged or authorized to enhance cataloging copies
Examples of low quality records:
- Incorrect call numbers
- Name headings do not match authority records
- Incorrect romanizations
- Incorrect diacritics or CJK symbols
- Incorrect subject headings
- Typographical errors
- Incorrect punctuations
- Extra space or no spacing
- Missing characters, diacritics, romanizations, or subfield codes
The access control is not well managed today, because
- Not all names used by the same author can be utilized as an access point
- Personal names established in non-standard romanizations are not paralleled as an access point
- The hyphen used for mountains, lakes, rivers, and bridges is not consistent
- Character access to the online name authority file is not available
Benefits of quality and access control
- Avoid duplicate editing or enhancing effort
- Speed up cataloging process
- Increase cataloging productivity
- Reduce cataloging costs
- Provide quality database to library users
- Improve access to database
Challenges for catalogers in the 21st century: Productivity, Quality, and Accessibility
How to achieve these goals?
- Carefully review and enhance catalog copy rather than accept it as is
- Actively participate in cataloging seminars and workshops
- Consistently consult cataloging reference tools
- Actively participate in PCC programs
2. Program for Cooperative Cataloging (Brian E.C. Schottlaender, UC San Diego)Brian introduced the history of the cooperative cataloging activities in the United States, with emphasis on projects began in the 1970's.
CONSER, began to function under Library of Congress auspices in 1973. Since then, members have produced a database of over 800,000 serial records. CONSER, and the associated United States Newspaper Program, have also provided serials catalogers with easy-to-use tools that have become the standard for serials cataloging: the CONSER Editing Guide and the CONSER Cataloging Manual. Program participants recently established guidelines for the cataloging of electronic journals in a special module of the CONSER Cataloging Manual and have just developed a similar module specifically for law serials.
Also closely associated with CONSER is the National Serials Data Program (or NSDP), a section of the Library of Congress that serves as the United States ISSN center. By assigning ISSNs and adding associated records to the CONSER database, NSDP catalogers supply an essential tool for access, identification, and control of serials.
In 1977, NACO was established, enabling a growing number of participating libraries to assist in the development of the National Authority File by contributing new or changed authority records. Almost a million and a half headings have been produced by more than 150 NACO libraries.
In 1988 the Library of Congress launched the National Coordinated Cataloging Program (or NCCP, enabling a group of 12 libraries to join LC in creating full-level national bibliographic records according to LC guidelines. This initiative was unsuccessful due to its burdensome requirement that the 12 participants conform to the cataloging policies and practices in place at the Library of Congress.
In November 1992, the Library of Congress invited a number of experts to discuss and to outline a plan to address cooperative cataloging. This effort resulted in the creation of the Cooperative Cataloging Council, which focused attention on redefining cataloging operations nationally in order to accomplish several objectives, including:
- putting into place cost-effective standards to allow libraries to decide what they will catalog and at what level of detail;
- simplifying record creation and contribution;
- broadening cooperative cataloging participation to include all types and sizes of libraries;
- increasing participation in the governance of a cooperative cataloging program; and
- increasing the efficiency of data transfer through new technology.
The Cooperative Cataloging Council pursued these goals by setting up several task groups. Throughout 1993 and 1994, the Council put together a new vision for cooperative cataloging.
From this process emerged the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (or PCC), which was officially established in February 1995. The PCC is a formal coalition of libraries that have agreed to work together to increase the availability of unique records created under mutually acceptable standards; to facilitate the creation and use of these records; and to provide leadership in the information community. Almost 400 members now enrolled in PCC, representing all types of libraries.
At the entry level, participants can join NACO, the name-and-series authorities program, and/or SACO, the subject authority program. Once independent for the contribution of name authorities, interested participants can begin to contribute bibliographic records.
The PCC is directed by a Policy Committee that includes permanent representatives as well as rotating representatives elected by member libraries. The permanent institutional members include the Library of Congress, the British Library, the National Library of Canada, OCLC, and the Research Libraries Group. The Policy Committee directs the strategic planning for the Program, establishes and monitors Program standards, promotes communication between the participants and the library community, and secures funding to support Program goals. In addition, the PCC administrative structure includes three standing committees that focus on standards, training, and automation, all important aspects of the Program's goals. The Library of Congress serves as secretariat to oversee the day-to-day activities of PCC operations.
In late 1996, the PCC Executive Council and the CONSER Policy Committee decided to consolidate; that goal was achieved on October 1, 1997. The PCC now serves as the umbrella organization for two bibliographic programs: BIBCO, for monographic record creation in all formats, and CONSER, for serial record creation in all formats. NACO and SACO continue as supporting programs to both BIBCO and CONSER.
The consolidation of PCC and CONSER has produced a number of benefits, including:
- a more unified voice for the cataloging community;
- elimination of duplication between programs;
- quicker decision-making;
- broader constituent bases; and
- a better mechanism to address issues of shared concern.
The mission and goals of the program can be summarized in the phrase: "More, Better, Faster, Cheaper"!
In the strategic plan guiding the PCC there are five critical goals.
- To cooperatively enhance the timely availability of bibliographic and authority records by cataloging more items, producing cataloging that is widely available for sharing and use by others, and performing cataloging in a more cost-effective manner.
Thus far, the Program has achieved substantial growth. Name authorities processed through NACO increased from 66,000 in FY 1992 to almost 133,000 in FY 1999. Submission of series authorities has increased over 300% (to 10,000 record annually), as has contribution of subject heading proposals (currently more than 2,000 annually).
The monographic cataloging component of the program-BIBCO-was inaugurated in September 1995 with a training program at LC. Currently, 38 major libraries are processing most of their original cataloging through the Program.
- To develop and maintain mutually acceptable standards for records. This goal reflects the recognition that increased production should not come at the expense of good quality work.
Widespread consultation with the library community produced agreement on the essential elements of what is now called the "core-level" record. The core-level record normally contains a full bibliographic description, most fixed-field coding, and the most necessary access points, including at least one or two specific subject headings as appropriate and a standard classification number. Most notes, however, are optional and the full array of secondary entries is not mandated. All access points are supported by authority records in the National Authority File.
Production of "core-level" records is an option in the PCC. Core-level standards have been defined for books, serials, music scores, sound recordings, audiovisual materials, and computer files, as well as for publications in non-Roman scripts (including CJK). A rare books core-level standard is under development.
Initial tests of core-level record implementation were conducted at UCLA and Cornell. In one case, core-level cataloging was shown to require 17% less time than full cataloging; in the other, 21% less. The Library of Congress also conducted an experiment in which it was demonstrated that far less time was required for core-level cataloging than for full-level cataloging. As a result, the Library of Congress has decided to adopt the core-level bibliographic record in the Cataloging Directorate and the Serial Record Division as the normal approach for bibliographic control.
- To promote the values of timely access and cost-effectiveness in cataloging, and to expand the pool of catalogers who catalog to mutually-accepted standards. To date, several dozen staff members from PCC institutions have received general PCC training. They, in turn, are now providing training to other colleagues at their libraries and at the libraries of other members. Most recently, the PCC launched the Serials Cataloging Cooperative Training Program. To date, eleven serials cataloging training sessions have been held, with an additional 22 scheduled for FY 2000.
- To increase the distribution and use of foreign bibliographic and authority records. Efforts to "harmonize" both cataloging rules and bibliographic formats have presented new opportunities for international cooperation. The PCC has capitalized on and facilitated these opportunities by inviting the national libraries of Great Britain and Canada to join in the work of the PCC, with both the British Library and the National Library of Canada holding permanent seats on the Policy Committee that governs the PCC.
In a major move to facilitate the exchange of cataloging, LC, the British Library, and the National Library of Canada are now focusing on reconciling differences in their MARC formats, with the goal of aligning USMARC, UKMARC, and CAN/MARC into a single MARC format. To date, LC and the National Library of Canada have succeeded in harmonizing their formats, and significant progress has recently been made in the effort to align, in turn, USMARC and CAN/MARC with UKMARC.
In the cooperative cataloging area, the National Library of Canada has been a long-time CONSER participant, and the British Library began contributing name authorities to NACO a few years ago. More recently, the British Library and were able to reconcile their respective interpretations of AACR2 in all areas except for a very few where existing bibliographic files contain so many entries that they cannot be changed at this time.
In addition to supporting NACO, the British Library in 1993 also became an active contributor to SACO, along with several other British libraries and the National Libraries of Scotland and Wales. Other international partners that have joined SACO include the National Library of Canada, the American Academy in Rome, the Swedish Institute of Classical Studies, and the National Library of Lithuania.
In Australia, the PCC/LC international interests have produced a NACO project with the University of Newcastle in New South Wales, preliminary to instituting a full-scale relationship with the Australian Bibliographic Network. Meanwhile, the National Library of Australia has been a long-term member of SACO as has the National Library of New Zealand. In South America, discussions have begun with staff at the University of S? Paulo with the goal of establishing a NACO link in Brazil this year. Thus, in the few years that have followed inauguration of the PCC, international partnerships have increased to nearly 15 in number!
- To provide for ongoing discussion, planning, and operations amongst participants in order to further the Program's mission. In the area of governance, including committees and task groups, every opportunity is made to be inclusive, to encourage input from library staff at many levels. Membership on the BIBCO and CONSER Operations Committees is intentionally open primarily to catalogers and cataloging managers, while Policy Committee membership is more likely to include higher-level technical services managers.
In summary, the following are the advantages the Program for Cooperative Cataloging offers its members:
- Because participating libraries are able use each other's cataloging to provide access to materials they have in common, they are able to catalog more items, increasing the number of unique original items cataloged.
- Use of a shared cataloging standard increases the reliability and predictable quality of cataloging.
- Increased, and increasingly reliable, copycataloging allows libraries to develop streamlined workflows.
- A network of catalogers creates a strong national resource for resolving complex bibliographic issues.
- PCC participants have access to highly qualified trainers drawn from peer institutions, including the Library of Congress.
- PCC participants have a strong, coherent voice in the review and development of cataloging standards. Their recommendations have influenced the development of the Anglo-American cataloging Rules, and have resulted in the review and streamlining of the LC Rule Interpretations. Rather than constraining catalogers to adhere to standards imposed upon them, the Program for Cooperative Cataloging offers catalogers the opportunity to participate in shaping the environment in which their work is carried out.
Currently, the following 28 institutions and funnel projects contribute CJK name authority records to the NACO file:
Arizona State University (C, J)
British Library (J)
Brown University (J)
Chicago Public Library (C, J)
Cleveland Public Library (J)
Columbia University (C, J, K)
Freer Gallery of Art (K)
George Washington University (C)
Georgetown University (C)
Government Printing Office (C)
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (C)
Indiana University (C)
Princeton University (C, J, K)
Queens Borough Public Library (C)
Saint Louis University (J)
San Francisco Public Library (C)
Stockton-San Joaquin County Public Library (Northern California Funnel) (C, J)
Texas A&M University (C)
University of California at Berkeley (C, J)
University of California, Los Angeles (C, J, K)
University of Hawaii, Manoa (C, J, K)
University of Houston (J)
University of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign (J)
University of Maryland (C, J)
University of New Mexico
University of Washington (J)
Western Washington University (J)
Yale University (C)
Approximately half are fully independent, while the others are at various stages of partial independence, depending upon the language and type of heading. In all cases, Library of Congress cataloging specialists in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean continue to collaborate with the Cooperative Cataloging Team in serving as resource persons for PCC institutions working in these languages.
A particularly exciting event in the past year was the membership and NACO training of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. They are already a producer of high quality bibliographic records, and they plan now to pursue CONSER membership as the next step in expanding their PCC role.
Further activities in support of PCC components have included cataloging seminars focusing on Asian materials.
- In 1998, a two-day seminar for 100 catalogers was held at the Library of Congress; a special segment consisted of subject cataloging for Buddhist materials.
- In 1999, another was held at Harvard University, during which a special focus was on cataloging East-Asian serials.
The PCC Standing Committee on Standards has held a long series of discussions on the subject of including vernacular data in records. The result has been the Supplementary Core for Multiple Character Sets, now mounted on the PCC Web site.
Finally, the conversion from Wade-Giles to Pinyin romanization for Chinese has absorbed a great deal of time and energy. Staff from the Library of Congress, OCLC and RLG, various professional associations, and some institutions have met regularly to map out the timing and procedures for the adoption of Pinyin, and the revision of existing authority and bibliographic files.
4. A Collaborative Project on Chinese Name Authority Control: The HKCAN Model (Kylie Chan, Lingnan University, Hong Kong)
Since the mid-1970s, the Library of Congress has developed the MARC format for name authority control and has established the Library of Congress Name Authority (LCNA) database. However, all non-Roman language headings in LCNA are rendered in romanized form without vernacular scripts. During the 1980s, Taiwan and Mainland China have each developed their own MARC formats for authority control on the basis of the original Chinese script, namely, Chinese MARC Format for Authority Records and China MARC Format/Authorities. Many Hong Kong libraries have chosen to employ USMARC instead. And, to be in line with LC?s standardized rules for cataloging Chinese-language materials, all Chinese data are entered in romanized form, in both bibliographic and authority records, using the Wade-Giles system. This poses major complications for cataloging, leading to various retrieval problems. The aim of this research paper is to examine the various authority control problems caused by LCNA, and to explore feasible solutions for the Hong Kong library community to improve on the current situation.
Problems of the Existing LCNA File
All the Chinese-language headings in LCNA are rendered in romanized form only. This kind of word-phonetic transliteration presents no morphological meaning to the Chinese readers. As a result, even Chinese-speaking cataloguers, who are familiar with both subject material and the above romanization systems, may face difficulties in identifying the correct records.
On the other hand, the CMARC and CNMARC, both derived from the principles set out for UNIMARC/Authorities, allow the repetition of the main-heading-entry tag for recording headings in more than one script forms, so that transliteration or alternative script can be co-resident in an authority record or may reside in separate records, with linkage provided by Tag 7xx. Unfortunately, according to the existing USMARC Authority practice, the 1xx is non-repeatable. In order to fulfill the special needs of the Hong Kong bilingual society, the local libraries should codify their own rules for authority control, and not be dominated by the restrictions exerted by LC.
Hong Kong is a bilingual society, with both Chinese and English as the official languages. Many local authors will publish in both English and Chinese. In terms of bibliographic searching in Hong Kong libraries, both Chinese and English publications are regarded as equal. Using See-also reference tracing to link up different language headings is considered tiresome and time-consuming. Given the multiscript capability of our library automated systems, romanization has become redundant and meaningless.
The following is a list of complications commonly encountered by Hong Kong cataloguers, in association with the use of LCNA for Chinese authority control.1) Homogeneous Records
In Chinese language, different or unrelated characters of distinctive meanings often bear the same pronunciation. Hence, many Chinese personal names are represented by the same romanization. As a result, cataloguers may spend a great deal of time and effort looking for contextual clues to differentiate these homogeneous Chinese names from one another. Library users will also experience difficulties in bibliographic searching2) Personal-Name Entries
There is no standard practice for authors, translators or publishers to present their names in their publications. Very often, Chinese authors choose to present their transliterated names in the traditional Chinese order. Hence, it is very difficult to determine which is the author?s given or family name, judging merely by the romanization.
3) English Forms/Headings with Mixed Romanization
Occasionally, a heading is made up of 2 different forms of romanization in LCNA. This kind of inconsistent romanization has reduced the effectiveness in finding a matching authority record in the LCNA File.4) Different Names Used by the Same Authors
In some cases, authors have used several forms of headings in different publications. This practice is particularly common for ancient Chinese authors. Many catalogers in the West might not be familiar with all the names used by the same author, therefore, many of these important cross-references are not provided in LCNA.
Inconsistent Treatment of Personal Names in LCNA
According to the principles defined by AACR2, cataloguers should choose a form that appears most frequently in publications or reference sources. However, in some Hong Kong bilingual authors found in LCNA, their English and Chinese names are not regarded as equivalents. And this further confirms that the Chinese headings established in LCNA do not codify the bilingual nature of our society.
Limited Coverage of Chinese-Name Headings in LCNA
Currently, only 2.8% of the OCLC WorldCat database contain Chinese, Japanese, and Korean script. The chance of finding a corresponding Chinese heading in LCNA is very low. Over 70% of Chinese personal names in the Hong Kong University Library online catalogue do not have matching LC authority records. The likelihood of finding matching headings in the LCNA for the Hong Kong authors will be even lower.
The Urgent Need for a Hong Kong Authority File
For many years, adding the original Chinese script to authority records has been advocated by the East Asian library community in the United States. In the Memorandum of Agreement on Convergence of cataloging Policy, it is recognized that romanization provides only an imperfect representation of title page form, and is recommended that in the future, Anglo-American Authority File should be developed to permit the storage and display of headings in the original script. Unfortunately, the LC rules of having all non-Roman scripts displayed in 880 field in USMARC Authority are still maintained.
As LCNA is created mainly for users in the West without taking into account the complete scope of historical or cultural development of China, the Hong Kong library community cannot rely merely on LCNA, especially where its policies are not appropriate for the local cataloging practice. As a result, some of the larger academic libraries in Hong Kong have been developing their own authority control systems to solve the problems.
Four libraries choose to abandon the use of the 880 field, and have the Chinese characters displayed in the traditional Tag 1xx. Some libraries use repeated 1xxs, which is a violation of USMARC practice. Some of them do not provide adequate or complete reference information for Tag 670. The above survey has demonstrated that the existing USMARC structure does not provide an effective approach for Chinese authority work.
Different libraries often choose different authoritative forms for a name, which is not conducive to easy sharing of cataloging information. The problem of inconsistent bibliographic information is highlighted, when bibliographic searching is conducted under a networked environment.
In order to provide a solution to improve the current situation, a group of academic libraries in Hong Kong has agreed to set up the Hong Kong Chinese Authority (Name) (HKCAN) Workgroup for establishing a union database that will reflect the unique characteristics of the local authors and organizational names.
1) HKCAN?s Mission
With goals modeled after the Programme for Cooperative Cataloging, the HKCAN Workgroup aims to improve and streamline authority-control operations, in order to make them "Better", "Faster" and "Cheaper" while producing "More".
2) Nature & Format of HKCAN Database
Due to the varying in-house cataloging practices employed, it is difficult to arrive at a single authority format that meets the needs of all participating libraries. Therefore, it is proposed that a union authority database, HKCAN, should be established. The HKCAN Database will provide no direct linkage to individual libraries? automated systems, however, it will enable participating libraries to download the authority records via remote access, and manipulate the data according to their individual cataloging practices.
We believe that bibliographic searching should enable comprehensive retrieval of all authoritative forms under the same author, regardless of its language or script. In order to perform a comprehensive search of multilingual materials by the same author, the HKCAN Workgroup has to undertake the design of a new authority model that will allow both English and Chinese language names to be co-resident inside the same record.
3) Proposal of Authority Models for HKCAN
The authority model developed by the HKCAN Workgroup is as follows:
First 1xx - in original Chinese script
Second 1xx - in "LC established form"
4xx (See From Tracing) - to record other variant and romanized forms, including original Chinese script.
880 - will not be considered, since it is unnecessary when using the double 1xxs. Besides, our existing library system will not support the indexing/linking of 880.
040 - HKCAN organization code to be inserted.
066 -- to be inserted. If the record is submitted for international exchange in the future, Tag 066 will indicate that special machine processing might be required for the record, since Chinese script is present.
670 - to provide as many Chinese-script citations as possible to indicate the source found, extensive author biographical information, as well as other related publications, if available.
The above design is based on the ideas proposed in MARBI Discussion Paper No. 111, as there will be a high possibility of repeating regular tags for non-Romanized data, rather than 880 fields in the future.
The advantages of Model A are:
- The use of LC established form in the second 1xx will enhance information exchange and resource sharing in the future for libraries in East and West.
- The arrangement of double 1xxs in the authority record will cater for most of the needs of the participating libraries.
- Using a single authority record to link an author?s multilingual publications. It will minimize efforts for future maintenance and updating.
- This kind of authority structure will not only enable flexible cross linkages between the first and second 1xx headings in different languages/scripts, it will also facilitate comprehensive searching of both Chinese and English publications at a single keystroke.
- Adding as many references in the original language in 4xx, 5xx, and 6xx as possible, including source citations, explanatory history/scope notes, as well as author?s biographical information in the original Chinese script. This arrangement will lead to easy identification of the correct record.
Unfortunately, the second 1xx is not supported by our library system vendor, as they claim that it will be a violation of the USMARC practice to repeat regular tags (i.e., 1xx) in the authority records. Besides, owing to the presence of the English forms, the second 1xx is not always a direct or systematic transliteration of the Chinese form in the first 1xx. Hence, the HKCAN Workgroup rework on the first Model in the following areas, and come up with the Model B:
First 1xx -- Original Chinese script maintained.
Second 1xx - Replaced by Tag 19x (Locally defined field) - to indicate LC established forms. The local authority fields proposed to be used are:
Tag 190 - Personal-Name Headings
Tag 191 - Corporate-Name Headings
Tag 192 - Conference-Name Headings &
Tag 193 - Series/Uniform-Title Headings.
The second indicator in Tag 19x will be used for specifying the romanization scheme used in the 19x field. This arrangement is meant to facilitate international exchange of authority data in the future.
4) Setup of the HKCAN Database
i. Merging of Authority Data
According to the initial statistics, more than 100,000 Chinese authority records have been created by the seven local academic libraries, with an average annual intake of 23,000 records. To initiate the setup of the HKCAN Database, one of the participating libraries will begin by combining all the authority records submitted by the participating institutions. After merging different authority files in the HKCAN Database successfully, all the duplicate records will then be removed.
ii. Software Development
The National Central Library in Taipei and the National Taiwan University Library have recently created a joint database of Chinese authority files. A software is also developed to support its operation. Based on the software model they developed, the HKCAN Workgroup is adopting a revised specification for the software of the HKCAN Database. The initial design of the HKCAN Database will include a Web-based interface with a capability to support the display or the processing of GB, BIG5 and CCCII internal codes.
iii. Systems Maintenance
Once the compilation work is concluded, the HKCAN Database will be made available online. Participating libraries can then download the desired authority records in USMARC format via remote access. The future maintenance will require extensive support provided by one of the larger institutions.
Future Development of HKCAN Database
- Online Linkage to Individual Libraries? Catalogues
The initial phase of the HKCAN Database does not interact with individual libraries? online catalogues, since it provides no direct linkage to individual libraries? automated systems. However, in order to improve the efficiency of accessing the HKCAN records, it is suggested that the subsequent model be integrated or linked with the individual libraries? catalogues in the long term. This will allow authority records to be transferred or downloaded directly online.
- Machine-Produced Authority Records
To reduce the time and manpower spent on authority work, it is recommended that the library systems should provide a command to create machine-produced authority records in the name-authority file automatically, based on the headings in the bibliographic records.
- Future Enhancement of HKCAN Records
It is recommended that Tag 856 (Electronic Location & Access) be introduced to the authority records to locate the relevant author?s online references in the future. This concept will extend the boundaries beyond the conventional parameters of authority work, as access to information will no longer be governed by the restrictions exerted by the traditional MARC tags.
- Cross-Straits cooperation
Today, more than 250,000 name authority records have been created by the National Library of China (Beijing). In Taiwan, NCL and NTU are currently combining their records into a new authority database.
The success of the LCNA is built upon an international cooperative effort among the participating libraries. With adequate support and encouragement, an international authority file that reduces the efforts of the global library community and maximize its usefulness will be made available in the not too distant future.
Conclusion The immediate future will see an increasing trend of incorporating the original Chinese script in USMARC authority. Owing to the varying cataloging practices employed, there has not been any successful sharing or cooperation of authority work implemented among the local libraries in Hong Kong. Through a collaborative approach, it is hoped that the HKCAN Database will enhance the effectiveness of Chinese authority work among local libraries, allowing institutions to conserve the time and manpower for authority management.
The success of the HKCAN Project will hinge entirely on the cooperative spirit among the participating libraries. The participating libraries should be ready to share their existing resources with one another, and be prepared to compromise and commit to the guidelines set out to ensure the integrity, uniformity and quality of the HKCAN Database.
Although the establishment of the HKCAN Project is by no means easy, and much of this project is still at the planning stage, we are confident that it will be a worthwhile effort. The project stands as an imperative task for libraries in Hong Kong. With the support and encouragement from the participating institutions, we can look forward to better cooperative cataloging and resource sharing among the local libraries. It is hoped that the HKCAN Database will provide a catalyst for the eventual emergence of a comprehensive Chinese bibliographical database in the region.
(Note: the complete article will be published in the February 2000 issue of the Journal of East Asian Libraries)
III. Pinyin Conversion, Programs, & Technical Processing Activities Report
1. Library of Congress Report: Status Report on Pinyin Conversion (Philip Melzer)
Last October, representatives from six major collections in the United States and Peter Zhou, representing CEAL's Pinyin Liaison Group, met with staff from the Library of Congress, OCLC, and RLG for an unofficial day-long planning meeting. Participants explored a wide range of issues related to local systems and catalogs, and worked on a coordinated approach to the conversion project. The group reached consensus on a sequence in which certain milestones were to be achieved, along with dates and 'time frames for major activities. There was agreement that as many authority records as possible should be converted in advance of the display of converted bibliographic records on RLIN and OCLC.
The Library of Congress continues to plan and coordinate conversion activities with the bibliographic utilities, RLG and OCLC. We conduct conference calls at least monthly to coordinate activities. A jointly coordinated timeline has been agreed upon.
Both authority records and bib records will be marked, for purposes of identification and to prevent re-conversion. The 008/07 fixed field on authorities (intended to indicate romanization scheme) will be utilized: converted authorities will be marked 'c' and those that are inspected but not converted will be marked 'n'. The marker on NARs will be used until conversion of headings has been completed.
The marker on the bib record will appear in a local field (the 987). It will indicate whether the bib record is fully converted, partially converted, or has been inspected but nothing has been converted. The marker will also include other information about the agency that converted, the date of conversion, and so forth. Use of the bib marker will cease after there is agreement that the changeover from Wade-Giles to pinyin has been completed.
CONVERSION OF NAME AND SERIES AUTHORITY RECORDS
LC has sent draft specifications to OCLC for conversion of authorities, along with records that are to be used as a test file. OCLC plans to report on the first test of its conversion program for NARs in April, with conversion specifications being finalized in May. We are working with OCLC to try to figure out how to identify headings which appear in Wade-Giles form but should not be converted; also how best to convert records for non-unique names. OCLC will begin machine conversion of NARs in July. Insofar as possible, authorities will be converted before bib records.
CONVERSION OF BIBS
Results of RLG's first test runs on LC sample Chinese-language bibliographic records have been sent to LC for analysis.
LC, OCLC, RLG will finalize conversion specifications for bibliographic records in June. The finalized specifications will be made available on the LC pinyin Web site.
RLG plans to begin converting clusters containing LC's Chinese-language bibliographic records in RLG union catalog in August. After finishing conversion of LC's Chinese records in September, RLG will begin to convert other clusters. OCLC will initiate conversion of bibliographic records in WorldCat in October.
RLG and OCLC will return snapshots of converted records to individual libraries for loading into local systems. Both OCLC and RLG plan to have conversion of bib records completed by April of 2001.
CONVERSION OF SUBJECT HEADINGS / CLASSIFICATION SCHEDULES
Plans for changes to classification schedules are ongoing at the Library of Congress. Conversion of subject headings will begin in July. After that time, catalogers will be directed to use pinyin romanization when they create new subject headings. Related classification changes will be initiated as headings are converted. Subject headings which could potentially 'double convert' will be put at the end of the queue and converted on or about Day 1. Converted authority records will be distributed through normal channels.
CPSO has proposed ending the current time period for Chinese literary authors at the end of this year (1949-2000), and then beginning a new time period next year (2001- ) with Cuttering based on pinyin romanization. Sample class schedules for these proposals may be found on the pinyin home page.
Currently, Chinese history is classified like this: provinces, prefectures and counties are classed in DS793, while cities and towns are in DS796. CPSO has proposed continuing to class provinces in DS793, but beginning to classify counties, towns and cities in a new Class, DS797, after conversion -- again, with Cuttering based on pinyin romanization.
RECORD TRANSFER AND DISTRIBUTION
The Library has begun to take steps to assure that converted authority and bib records will be successfully imported into the LC Database and CDS Database, and then redistributed to subscribers. Name and series authority records will be included in the daily NACO distribution to OCLC and RLIN, as well as in CDS' other authority products, as they are converted, beginning in August. LC will begin to load its converted bib records in September, and begin to distribute them in October.
CDS wants to know if there is sufficient interest for the compilation and distribution of a special file consisting only of authority records that have been converted to pinyin. If you would be interested in purchasing such a file, please contact the Library's Cataloging Distribution Service.
DAY 1 AND THE GAP PERIOD
DAY 1 will occur on October 1,2000. After Day 1, systematic romanization of Chinese will be carried out by the Library of Congress according to new pinyin guidelines in all Library operations. New bibliographic and authority records created by other libraries will also follow pinyin romanization guidelines. The transition to full use of pinyin for all romanization of Chinese begins on that day.
The Library will regard the time between the appearance of converted authority records in our databases and Day 1 as a gap period. The Library , along with RLG and OCLC, will propose a moratorium on the creation of authority records with romanized Chinese in the headings during that period of time. We believe that there is no alternative; the submission of either Wade-Giles or pinyin headings during the gap period would cause a great deal of confusion. We estimate the gap period will last from several weeks to two months. You might find it convenient to define the gap period differently at your institution. You will probably find it necessary to make special plans for the processing of Chinese material during your gap period. We will work with OCLC and RLG to make the moratorium as brief as possible.
CONVENTIONAL PLACE NAMES
The Library has completed the revision of name authority records for Chinese conventional place names. More than 260 name authority records for Chinese conventional place names and 5300 related authority records have been revised so that they now appear in forms recommended by the US Board on Geographic Names (BGN). Most of these headings on bibliographic records will be changed during machine conversion to pinyin.
CLEANUP / BFM
LC will work with OCLC to schedule and complete necessary cleanup tasks associated with the conversion of name authority records. NAR cleanup tasks might include: 1) double-checking the authorities which should not convert; 2) checking 'no-hitters' (i.e. headings on bib records without corresponding NARs); 3) resolving problems with see-also references; 4) review of remaining NARs which are in Wade-Giles form in the name authority file.
There will also be cleanup projects involving bibliographic records following Day 1. We will have to locate and change Wade-Giles headings on non-Chinese records. We will also have to locate and convert any sub fields that may not have been converted by the machine program.
For information and status reports about the conversion project, check LC's pinyin home page at
2. RLG Report (Karen Smith-Yoshimura, RLG)
A RLG report on pinyin conversion was released at RLG's Web site in January 2000. LC, RLG, and OCLC are following the consolidated timeline and are committed to Day 1. Conversion test result is being sent to LC for review. RLG will start conversion of LC bibliographic records in August, at the same time OCLC is converting authority records. After LC records have been converted, RLG will convert other records in the same cluster. Eventually, description and access fields in Wade-Giles in all records (not just Chinese records) will be changed. An open RLIN CJK forum will be held on Friday morning. A RLG pinyin working group was formed and has been working on the conversion issues. An appeal was sent to CEAL for CEAL to appeal to BGN to change Taiwanese names to pinyin so they don't have to be converted again at a later time.
3. OCLC Report (Glenn Patton, OCLC)
Since there will be an OCLC Users Group meeting tomorrow, Glenn only highlighted a few things:
Authority file conversion
- Subject headings will be converted manually by LC beginning in July 2000
- Name and series authority records will be converted by OCLC in August 2000 and will be redistributed after conversion
Conversion of WorldCat
- Will begin in October 2000
- Will convert Chinese records first, then non-Chinese records, such as Japanese and Korean records. Newest records will be converted first since they are likely to be used for copycataloging.
- Batch-loading software will be modified so that incoming Wade-Giles records are converted into pinyin.
Marking converted records
- Bibliographic records - field 987
- Authority records - codes in 008/07 (Romanization scheme)
Service for member libraries - OCLC will offer three conversion options, using the same techniques
- Conversion of local database
- The library extract appropriate MARC records from the local system and send them to OCLC.
- Other "clean-up" options can be included.
- Related authority records can be delivered.
- Conversion of archive records
- OCLC convert the archive records of individual libraries (editing done in local system would not be included).
- Other "clean-up" options can be included.
- Related authority records can be delivered.
- Converted Master records
- OCLC delivers copies of converted master records (editing done during previous uses of the record or in the local system would not be included).
- Offers the possibility of restoring vernacular data for libraries that stripped them.
- Final pricing will be available this spring.
- All conversion will be "custom quote" based on the number of records to be processed.
- Price range expected to be about 20 to 25 cents per record.
4. Pinyin Conversion: What now? (Karl Lo, UC San Diego)
Since the pinyin conversion has been decided, we should do something constructive from now on, instead of debating whether conversion is necessary or not. Things we should do:
- Start thinking ASAP and do ASAP for conversion and do as complete as possible, so users can retrieve the bibliographical records easily.
- Move ahead and promote to have CJK script in OPAC. (The next generation of the University of California's system-wide library system, MELVYL, will have multi-lingual capability.)
- As a national group, we should follow the same step and standard.
- We should adopt technology that has been working already. For example, we should use RLIN aggregator for Chinese to facilitate retrieval and to conform with the Chinese standard.
- Consider seriously using the OCLC Z-Client which can convert record from Wade-Giles to pinyin automatically.
- Use more automatic translation technology.
- Think about moving away from romanization and use vernacular characters directly.
- We should change the concept of authority control. Instead of using authority file for cross-reference, we should use a convergent method, i.e., many forms converge into one authority record. This way, we can type in one form and the system will broadcast and search the name in all forms in the database.
IV. Questions & Answers and Other ReportsQ: How will non-unique name authority records be handled in the conversion?
A: (Melzer) LC has looked into converting non-unique names manually, but has found it too time-consuming. Will try to look at an alternative methods.
(Karen) NACO libraries should participate in the conversion and cleanup process.Q: After seeing Hong Kong's name authority project, can the panelists respond to the idea?
A: (Karen) I have one clarification: MARC21 will allow input of multiple 1xx fields, but will communicate differently than the Hong Kong model. We have a format to include non-Roman scripts, but it's not implemented yet. After the conversion project is done, it might be implemented.
(Patton) Unicode was not mentioned in the Hong Kong Project. Unicode is getting popular and will allow mix of various scripts. MARBI has an advisory group working on the multilingual issue.
(Brian) Conceptually, the project is interesting, but the concept of authority control needs to be considered. What constitutes authority depends on the context (geographic, linguistic, culture, etc.), and therefore, authorized forms can be different in different countries.Q: What to do after Day 1 if there are still Wade-Giles records coming in from OCLC?
A: (Karen) Every record exported from RLIN after Day 1 will have the 987 field indicating that the record has been converted. When pinyin records are created by libraries, a 987 filed has to be used. Records without the 987 filed will be converted to pinyin.Q: Is the current Pinyin Romanization Guidelines the same as the advanced version or updated?
A: (Melzer) It should be the same.
Program adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
Sarah Elman, Recorder
University of California, Los Angeles