1 Joan M. Aliprand Senior Analyst, RLG Issues to Consider in a Multilingual, Multiscript World HKCAN Seminar & Opening October 4, 2002

1

Joan M. AliprandSenior Analyst, RLG

Issues to Consider in a Multilingual, Multiscript

World

HKCAN Seminar & OpeningOctober 4, 2002

October 4, 2002 HKCAN Seminar & Opening 2

Overview

Technical issues Transcription issues Retrieval issues


Technical Issues

Alternative MARC record models Plain text of MARC Scripts available in system


Technical Issues

MARC Record Models

Only original script in main fields UNIMARC and those modelled on it Also an option with MARC 21

Romanized record with supplementary “alternate graphic representation” LC MARC 21

• Field pairing issue


Script Support

Not just fonts for display Involves input, display formatting, retrieval Size of fonts for Chinese language support


Hanzi in Character Sets

Character Set First Level Total

EACC 13,468

Big 5 5,401 13,107

Big5 Plus 21,114

CCCII 42,423 53,940

Unicode * 27,484 70,207

* First Level count = Unified Han & Extension A


Features of Plain Text

Plain text is is a pure sequence of character codes.

The simplicity of plain text gives it a natural role as a major structural element of fancy text.

Plain text must contain enough information to permit the text to be rendered legibly, and nothing more.

Source: The Unicode Standard, Version 3.0, pp. 15-16.


No Limits on Transcription?

Limits on Unicode character repertoire Implementing every character in Unicode

simultaneously pushes technical limits Even now, we don’t always transcribe

everything that appears on the cataloging source.


Transcription Issues

What needs to be transcribed? How faithful do we have to be? What does not need to be transcribed? What cannot be transcribed?

What do we do? Making distinctions


What needs to be transcribed?

“Language and script” in bibliographic records AACR2 Rule 1.0E

Specific elements of the description


Descriptive Elements for Books

Title and Statement of Responsibility Area Edition Area Publication, Distribution, etc. Area Physical Description Area Series Area Notes Area (Required)

Source: The IFLA Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records,by Olivia M. A. Madison – Figure 2. (LRTS, 44:3, July 2000)


Descriptive Elements for Books

Title and Statement of Responsibility Area Edition Area Publication, Distribution, etc. Area Physical Description Area Series Area Notes Area (Required)

Source: The IFLA Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records,by Olivia M. A. Madison – Figure 2. (LRTS, 44:3, July 2000)


“ Language and Script” inAuthority Records

Non-English headings• Uniform, controlled heading established under

applicable source of authority

• Variant and related headings (tracings for cross-references, etc..)

Recording the source• Authority heading in any script/language

• Example: Romanized heading from non-Roman source

Links to other authority files


How faithful do we have to be?

Deliberate omission Instructions in rules Conventionally ignored

Inability to transcribe Variety of approximation techniques

Same but different Added distinction required


AACR (1968) Rule 133

A. General rule.… Chinese characters considered archaic, decorative, etc.are represented by the corresponding forms found in the K‘ang hsi tzu tien or Ueda’s Daijiten, if possible, butsimplified characters are transcribed as such. ...


How faithful do we have to be?

Deliberate omission Instructions in rules Conventionally ignored

Inability to transcribe Variety of approximation techniques

Same but different Added distinction required


Deliberate Omission

Instruction in rules Omit if not needed for legibility

• Examples: ©, ®, * on date of birth, † on date of death

• Ignore a symbol if not “integral or essential” part of title

Substitution of characters (even if available)• MARC 21 Greek symbols character set has but

LCRI dictates [alpha], [beta], [gamma]

• Superscript and subscript digits transcribed as 0-9 if not essential for legibility

18 HKCAN Seminar & Opening October 4, 2002

Example courtesy ofStanford University

Libraries


Example courtesy of Heidi Lerner, Stanford University Libraries


Deliberate Omission

Instruction in rules Example: Trimming of lengthy title Example: Hebrew vocalization in title

Conventionally ignored Example: Title annotated with furigana Example: Printing flourishes



Example courtesy of Edward A. Jajko, Hoover Institution, Stanford University


Inability to Transcribe

Language text — Romanization Instruction in rules

Symbols — Cataloger’s description Ideographs

Variety of options


Thanks to: Beth Hoffman, Innovative Interfaces

U+9C72


Inability to Transcribe Ideographs

Placeholders The geta

Two ideographs unavailable in EACC



Placeholders The geta [romanization]


Source of illustration: Cataloging Guidelines for Creating Chinese Rare Book Records in Machine-Readable Form. (RLG, 2001).


Placeholders The geta, [romanization]

Best approximation? Chinese Rare Books union catalogue practice


Source of illustration: Cataloging Guidelines for Creating Chinese Rare Book Records in Machine-Readable Form. (RLG, 2001).




• cf. U+303E IDEOGRAPHIC VARIATION INDICATOR in Unicode™





• cf. U+303E IDEOGRAPHIC VARIATION INDICATOR in Unicode

Other alternatives Ideographic description sequence


Alternative Ideographic Description Sequences

Source: John Jenkins, Apple Computer


Categories of Variants

Official Simplifications Regional and minority characters and variants Time-specific variants National typographic variants Typeface-specific variants Misprints Unofficial simplifications Calligraphic and handwriting variants

Source: Martin J. Dürst. Exploring the Potentials of Web Technologies for the Handling of Rare Ideo-graphs and Ideograph Variants. http://www.w3.org/People/Dürst/Talks/19980409/overview.htm


Variant Forms: Unicode & EACC

Separately encoded in both Unicode and EACC

215122

455122

Not inEACC

275122

Not inEACC


Where a character is a distinct form in simplified Chinese from the one used in traditional Chinese, Unicode has generally encoded two distinct characters. This is partly Unicode’s inheritance from the character sets on which it’s based, but it’s mostly a matter of recognizing that there is not a one-to-one relationship between the characters used in the two varieties of written Chinese. …

The itaiji [variant form] problem has to do with personal names. In the West we have Mark and Marc, John and Jon, Jeff and Geoff. (We won’t even attempt the number of ways William Shakespeare spelled his name, none of which were “Shakespeare.”) East Asia has the same problem: the same character can be used in personal names with many different glyphs, and people can become quite insistent that their name be written with the right glyph. ...

And there are cases where there’s just more than one way to write something, and one authority will say the entities involved are two subtly different characters, and another will say they’re just glyphic variants of each other. …

Source: John Jenkins. New Features in Unicode 3.2. (Multilingual Computing, Issue #49)





• cf. U+303E IDEOGRAPHIC VARIATION INDICATOR in Unicode

Other alternatives Ideographic description sequence Variation selection??

• Encroaches on markup (e.g. XML)


Making Distinctions

Same graphically, different semantically The motive for authority control

Qualification Different needs in different environments

• Different scripts (ideographs vs. pinyin)


Retrieval Issues

Relationship between transcription and retrieval

Transcription and Z39.50 Differences between EACC and Unicode


Retrieval Issues Impact of Transcription

Think of implications for retrieval when making transcription decisions Should the geta be indexed?

Authority control is the key to resolving alternative “spellings” in manifestations


Retrieval Issues Transcription and Z39.50

Need to have “common ground” Script support Character repertoire for scripts Alternative record models

• Romanized retrieval an option or not


Retrieval Issues EACC, Unicode

Differences EACC character codes associate related

characters Traditional and simplified Variants preferred for language or location

No relationships via Unicode encoding• Requires separate methods to identify character

relationships


Retrieval Issues EACC, Unicode

Differences Traditional versus simplified

How to retrieve either? The many-to-one issue

Variant forms How to retrieve all? How to retrieve a particular form?


In Conclusion

Transcription is not as straightforward as it appears.

Consider how transcription decisions might affect retrieval.

Re-assess indexing needs when migrating from existing character sets to Unicode.

42

Thank You

Unicode is a trademark of Unicode, Inc., and may be registered in some jurisdictions.© 2002 RLG.

Documents

1 Joan M. Aliprand Senior Analyst, RLG Issues to Consider in a Multilingual, Multiscript World HKCAN Seminar & Opening October 4, 2002