NAME: Recording additional characteristics in USMARC Authority records
SOURCE: Library of Congress
SUMMARY: This paper discusses several characteristics -- language, script, transliteration, country (nationality), and catalog rules -- that might be coded in Authority records, indicating possible uses and problems, along with techniques.
KEYWORDS: Language; Script; Transliteration; Nationality; Catalog rules (Authority Format)
6/16/97 - Forwarded to USMARC Advisory Group for discussion at the June 1997 MARBI meetings.
6/28/97 - Results of USMARC Advisory Group discussion - The different characteristics were discussed with more concentration on the language aspects of headings. Several saw uses for language of heading, when one agency is trying to serve different language groups from one record. Some saw that as an application problem and not a communications format concern. Others felt the difficulty in making a determination of which language, increasing cataloging expense. One participant reported that a European to provide access to authority records from different countries considered combining all records for an entity into a master record, identifying languages, etc. They decided to take a more decentralized approach, leaving records in their "own environments" and providing access to records in those environments. That is a little more like Model B, except that the records are not necessarily linked. Discussion of script centered on the usefulness of the script code explicitly in the $6 subfield. OCLC, VTLS, and EOS all indicated they did not use that coded information.
Transliteration was seen as useful in some cases but problematic as there are so many if considered from a global viewpoint.
One participant spoke for the nationality at the record level, although the group pointed out many difficult examples. In the more clear cut cases, it would not take much time to code and the information could be somewhat useful. It was pointed out that if systems then allowed searches by the characteristic, the less obvious cases might be erratically retrieved.
There was little discussion of the 880 as the user is largely unaware of the field (most displays show duplicate fields). This item will need more review and consideration by systems staff.
The participants were encouraged to continue the discussion on the USMARC list in preparation for more discussion at Midwinter. There was a request for some subject examples in a revision of the DP.
DISCUSSION PAPER NO. 100: Coding additional characteristics 1. INTRODUCTION The USMARC Authority record is multifaceted and flexible, accommodating agencies that require records for established headings, subdivisions of headings, references, and node labels. It supports various models for creating authority records, but in particular the general model of established heading with associated reference tracings. There has been discussion over the last few years about the need to identify various characteristics of headings in authority records in order to support cataloging and retrieval activities. The characteristics include language of catalog, language of heading, script, transliteration scheme, nationality, and rules. MARC already supports recording of this information in some situations, but a look at the primary models used for authority records may indicate more generalized approaches would be useful for the future. The following standard vocabulary is used below. It is adapted from an IFLA document that specifies displays of name authority data, Guidelines of Authority and Reference Entries. The headings are defined with respect to their relationship to other headings: Uniform heading -- A heading established in a form to be followed without variation whenever the heading appears in a bibliographic record. (e.g., 1XX heading) Parallel heading -- An alternative form of the uniform heading based on another language form of the name or title. (e.g., some 4XX or 7XX headings) Related heading -- One of two or more uniform headings, each of which is bibliographically related to the other(s). (e.g., 5XX heading) Variant heading -- A heading in a form other than that established as the uniform heading. Generally such a heading is either based on a variant name sometimes used by the person or corporate body itself, or sometimes used by others to identify the person, corporate body, or work; or constructed on a pattern different from that used to establish the uniform heading. (e.g., 4XX and 7XX headings) Two basic models for authority records are illustrated below, labeled A and B. Model A takes the approach of including a heading and all related and variant reference tracings in one record, regardless of language differences. In Model B separate records are made for parallel headings needed for different language catalogs, and the records are linked via the 7XX fields. The models are presented below first vis-a-vis the indication of language of catalog, as that is a fundamental characteristic of a file of authority records that constitutes a catalog (all headings interrelated), rather than a simple resource file (records essentially independent of each other). Although the discussion applies equally to subject thesauri, to simplify it is presented in terms of name authorities, with a note on subjects and classification schedules at the end. Note: Diacritics and special character characters have been normalized to ASCII in the following examples. Language of Catalog The language(s) of the expected users of a catalog is fundamental to an authority file. Most rules for construction of catalogs specify the language(s) to be used for additions to headings and notes in the record. For example, AACR2, when used in an English- speaking country, specifies that uniform headings be established in the "original language" of the entity's name (transliterated as needed, and with some exceptions) and that qualifiers and notes be in English. The cross-reference structure for the uniform heading is affected by the rules and the languages used to formulate the heading. The following are the models used for constructing authority files. Model A: Each record is constructed around one heading for an entity (the 1XX uniform heading) and that heading is appropriate for a catalog in the language designated at the record level by the 040$b field. The 4XX and 5XX traced reference headings constitute the reference structure for the 1XX heading in that catalog. All parallel forms of the 1XX heading in other languages are treated as variant headings and traced in the 4XX fields. Headings that would belong in a reference structure of a parallel form may also be among the 4XX variant headings. Ex.1 040 $beng n79006935 100 1#$aMarx, Karl,$d1818-1883 400 1#$aMarukusu,$d1818-1883 400 1#$aMarx, Carlos,$d1818-1883 400 1#$aMarks, Karl,$d1818-1883 400 1#$aMarks, Karol,$d1818-1883 400 1#$aMarksas, Karolis$d1818-1883 400 1#$aMac, Cac$d1818-1883 Ex.2 040 $beng n83201056 100 1#$6880-01$aZemtsovskii, I. I.$q(Izalii Iosifovich) 400 1#$6880-02$aZemtsovskii, Izalii Iosifovich 400 1#$aZemtsovskiy, I. 880 1#$6400-02$a<name in Cyrillic> 880 1#$6100-01/cyrillic$a<name in Cyrillic with initials>$q(<qualifier in Cyrillic>) Ex.3 040 $beng n82020426 110 2#$aNational Library of Canada 410 2#$aBibliotheque nationale du Canada Ex.4 040 $beng n50057296 110 2#$aDeutsche Bucherei (Germany) 410 2#$aGermany (East).$bDeutsche Bucherei 410 2#$aGermany (East).$bGerman National Library 410 2#$aLeipzig.$bDeutsche Bucherei 410 2#$aGerman National Library 410 2#$aBibliotheque allemande (Germany) 410 2#$aNemetskaia biblioteka (Germany) Ex.5 040 $beng n80020373 110 1#$aSoviet Union.$bPosolstvo (Egypt).$bMaktab al-sihafal 410 1#$aRussia (1923- U.S.S.R.).$bPosolstvo (Egypt).$bMaktab al-sihafal. Ex.6 040 $beng n79076156 151 ##$aMoscow (Russia) 451 ##$aMoskva (Russia) 451 ##$aMoscou (Russia) 451 ##$aMoskau (Russia) 451 ##$aMoscova (Russia) 451 ##$aMo-ssu-k'o (Russia) Ex.7 040 $beng n80125931 151 ##$aGermany 451 ##$aDeutschland 451 ##$aFederal Republic of Germany 451 ##$aBundesrepublik Deutschland 451 ##$aGermanyah Model B: Each record is constructed around one heading for an entity (1XX uniform heading) and that heading is appropriate for a catalog in the language designated at the record level by the 040$b field. The 4XX and 5XX traced headings constitute the reference structure for the 1XX heading in that catalog. For specified languages, however, a cataloging agency constructs parallel records that contain parallel 1XX uniform headings that differ in language of the catalog into which they fit, e.g., English catalog and French catalog. (If the heading and its reference structure would be the same for the different language catalogs, then one record may serve, but that is an implementation decision. For the model there are parallel records.) These parallel uniform headings have separate authority entry records in which they are the 1XX heading and where their reference structures and other information are recorded in the 4XX and 5XX reference tracing and 6XX note fields. The parallel language records may be linked through the 7XX record linking fields. In each authority entry record, the parallel 1XX headings (and their associated record numbers (subfield $0)) may be recorded in 7XX linking fields. Ex.1 040 $beng$bger [Note: one record for both catalogs) 100 1#$aMarx, Karl,$d1818-1883 400 1#$aMarukusu,$d1818-1883 400 1#$aMarx, Carlos,$d1818-1883 400 1#$aMarks, Karl,$d1818-1883 400 1#$aMarks, Karol,$d1818-1883 400 1#$aMarksas, Karolis$d1818-1883 400 1#$aMac, Cac$d1818-1883 Ex.2 040 $beng 110 2#$aNational Library of Canada <Tracings and notes for an English language catalog> 710 25$aBibliotheque nationale du Canada 040 $bfre 110 2#$aBibliotheque nationale du Canada <Tracings and notes for a French language catalog> 710 26$aNational Library of Canada Ex.3 040 $beng 110 2#$aDeutsche Bucherei (Germany) 410 2#$aGermany (East).$bDeutsche Bucherei 410 2#$aGermany (East).$bGerman National Library 410 2#$aGerman National Library 410 2#$aBibliotheque allemande (Germany) 410 2#$aNemetskaia biblioteka (Germany) 710 24$aDeutsche Bucherei (Deutschland) 040 $bger 110 2#$aDeutsche Bucherei (Deutschland) 410 2#$aLeipzig.$bDeutsche Bucherei 410 2#$aDeutschland (Ost).$bDeutsche Bucherei 410 2#$aBibliotheque allemande (Deutschland) 410 2#$aNemetskaia biblioteka (Deutschland) 710 20$aDeutsche Bucherei (Germany) Ex.4 040 $beng 151 ##$aMoscow (Russia) 451 ##$aMoskva (Russia) 451 ##$aMoscou (Russia) 451 ##$aMoskau (Russia) 451 ##$aMoscova (Russia) 451 ##$aMo-ssu-k'o (Russia) 751 #4$aMoscou (Russie) 040 $bfre 151 ##$aMoscou (Russie) 451 ##$aMoskva (Russie) 451 ##$aMoscow (Russie) 451 ##$aMoskau (Russie) 451 ##$aMoscova (Russie) 451 ##$aMo-ssu-k'o (Russie) 751 #0$aMoscow (Russia) Ex.5 040 $beng 151 ##$aGermany 451 ##$aFederal Republic of Germany 451 ##$aGermanyah 751 #4$aDeutschland 040 $bger 151 ##$aDeutschland 451 ##$aBundesrepublik Deutschland 451 ##$aGermanyah 751 #0$aGermany Note that even when these parallel uniform headings are in a different script, in addition to being in a different language of catalog, the above models can be used. Language of Heading The above discusses language in terms of language of catalog, rather than identifying the actual language or languages found in the heading field. The two may differ because of rules that prescribe use of the original language for certain headings. The language of the catalog, not the heading, establishes the foundation for the accompanying reference structure. The language of the heading is not currently being specified in MARC. In 1985, LC's Office of Descriptive Cataloging Policy tried to formulate guidelines for coding the language of heading positions that then existed in the 008 field, but abandoned the task with the following comment: At the time of the development of the format, even though this code was finally included, we wondered about its utility, particularly in view of non-uniform application. In formulating the guidelines, we find the initial pessimism reinforced. Given the difficulties with ambiguous cases that are bound to arise, no matter the guidelines, we cannot recommend an application of the code to anyone. As a result the 008 positions were made obsolete in the format in 1986. Some of the problems stem from the fact that many headings are mixed language as the following examples from an English catalog illustrate, and many others are either not language based or language of heading is ambiguous. Examples: Ludovicus IV, Emperor of Germany, 1287-1347 [Latin and English] Deutsche Bibliothek (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) [German and English] Siege d'Orleans (Mystery play) [French and English] Nabokov, Vladimir [English or Russian?] The significant information about these headings is the language of the catalog into which they fit, not the languages that are used in their formulation. But difficulties aside, some librarians believe that it may be useful to also indicate at the heading level the language(s) of a heading. A repeating subfield $7 could be used to indicate the languages used to formulate each heading. Model A: Ex.1 040 $beng 100 10$aMarx, Karl,$d1818-1883$7eng$7ger 400 10$aMarukusu,$d1818-1883$7jpn 400 10$aMarx, Carlos,$d1818-1883$7spa 400 10$aMarks, Karl,$d1818-1883$7rus 400 10$aMarks, Karol,$d1818-1883$7pol 400 10$aMarksas, Karolis$d1818-1883$7lit 400 10$aMac, Cac$d1818-1883$7vie Ex.2 040 $beng 110 2#$aNational Library of Canada$7eng 410 20$aBibliotheque nationale du Canada$7fre Ex.3 040 $beng 110 2#$aDeutsche Bucherei (Germany)$7ger$7eng 410 20$aGermany (East).$bDeutsche Bucherei$7ger$7eng 410 20$aGermany (East).$bGerman National Library$7eng 410 20$aLeipzig.$bDeutsche Bucherei$7ger$7eng 410 20$aGerman National Library$7eng 410 20$aBibliotheque allemande (Germany)$7fre$7eng 410 20$aNemetskaia biblioteka (Germany)$7rus$7eng Ex.4 040 $beng 110 10$aSoviet Union.$bPosolstvo (Egypt).$bMaktab al- sihafal$7eng$7rus$7ara 410 10$aRussia (1923- U.S.S.R.).$bPosolstvo (Egypt).$bMaktab al-sihafal.$7eng$7rus$7ara Ex.5 040 $beng 151 ##$aMoscow (Russia)$7eng 451 ##$aMoskva (Russia)$7eng 451 ##$aMoscou (Russia)$7fre$7eng 451 ##$aMoskau (Russia)$7ger$7eng 451 ##$aMoscova (Russia)$7lit$7eng 451 ##$aMo-ssu-k'o (Russia)$7chi$7eng Ex.6 040 $beng 151 ##$aGermany$7eng 451 ##$aDeutschland$7ger 451 ##$aFederal Republic of Germany$7eng 451 ##$aBundesrepublik Deutschland$7ger 451 ##$aGermanyah$7heb Model B: Model B records would similarly use $7 in heading fields to indicate language of heading. Script Some agencies need to record headings, tracings, and notes in more than one script (1) because of different orthographies used for a language (e.g., kana and kanji scripts for Japanese; devanagari, khmer, and lao scripts for Pali) and (2) because transliteration of some or all data in a record is needed to support limitations on automated systems or telecommunications systems and/or needs of users. Alternative graphic representations of the headings, reference tracings, and notes may be co-resident in an authority record (Model A). Logically Model B could also be used, with one script for each linked record, although Model B is more appropriate when the different script representations of the 1XX uniform heading differ also in language of catalog. In that case the data is treated like the models for alternative language of catalog data. Model A: When the alternative script representations of headings are co-resident in a record, the alternative graphic forms of the data fields are currently recorded in 880 fields, linked to their corresponding fields via the $6 subfield, which also identifies the main script in the 880 field. $6<linking tag>-<occurrence number>/<script code>/<field orientation code> For records produced in the United States, this means the 880 fields contain most of the non-Latin characters in a record. 066 $alatin$bextended latin$ccyrillic 100 1#$6880-01$aZemtsovskii, I. I.$q(Izalii Iosifovich) 400 1#$6880-02$aZemtsovskii, Izalii Iosifovich 400 1#$aZemtsovskiy, I. 880 1#$6400-02$a<name in Cyrillic> 880 1#$6100-01/cyrillic$a<name in Cyrillic with initials>$q(<qualifier in Cyrillic>) [Note that in this document script is designated in field 066 and subfield $6 by name rather than the proper codes that are specified in MARC, e.g., in MARC Cyrillic would be indicated as "(N".] The $6 subfield is inserted in the fields to link the corresponding fields when the alternate graphic field is a pure transliteration of an associated field. If the non-Latin field in an 880 does not have a transliteration relationship with another field, the subfield $6 in field 880 carries the imputed tag for the data, but the link number is 0, indicting it does not link to an associated field. In field 880, following the slash, the code for one of the character sets used in the field is indicated. If more than one non-Latin set is used, the others are not indicated in the $6. The indication of script in subfield $6 is used for unspecified purposes by the application programs. The information is redundant since the same code in a character set escape code sequence, e.g., esc)N, appears before every series of non-Latin characters in the field and incomplete since only the first set is specified. These escape codes are used by the machine to process the characters in the proper script, not the script code in the $6. In the future, with the Universal Character Set (USC) character set, escape codes will not be needed for non-Latin characters. There may or may not be a need to mark a field at the subfield level as containing other than the default script. If there were, there are several schemas for identifying repertoires of characters that could be considered. The above has been stated in terms of a record in an environment that is based on the Latin script. In that setting the regular tagged fields are Latin and the 880 fields contain data in other scripts. The 880 has been useful for systems that could not handle alternate script data as it allows quick elimination of non-Latin data. Since the format is increasingly being used worldwide, the 880s present problems for some format users with multiscript and non-Latin script environments. Model A without field 880: With the introduction and use of the UCS more systems are going to be able to handle data in the original script and slowly the transliteration of some parts of records will be phased out. LC, for example, provides much more transliterated data in online records for non-Latin scripts than it did when GPO was printing vernacular cards. LC expects to increase inclusion of vernacular in records when it has vernacular capability in its OPAC. As a result more unlinked data will be carried in the 880 fields instead of the regular tagged fields. Consideration should be given, therefore, to normalizing the treatment of alternative graphic information and using repeating regular tags rather than 880 fields. With the establishment of the $8 subfield as the "universal" field-to-field link, the use of $6 for linking information will become increasingly confusing. A more logical way to handle the alternate script data in the same record might be to use the $8 to link alternate graphic representations when needed and the $6 to indicate explicitly the script(s) in the field, if necessary. 066 $alatin$bextended latin$ccyrillic 100 1#$801\g$aZemtsovskii, I. I.$q(Izalii Iosifovich) 100 1#$801\g$6/cyrillic$a<name in Cyrillic with initials>$q(<qualifier in Cyrillic>) 400 1#$802\g$aZemtsovskii, Izalii Iosifovich 400 1#$aZemtsovskiy, I. 400 1#$802\g$6/cyrillic$a<name in Cyrillic> An alternative would be to code the alternate graphic form of the 1XX as a 4XX: 066 $alatin$bextended latin$ccyrillic 100 1#$801\g$aZemtsovskii, I. I.$q(Izalii Iosifovich) 400 1#$801\g$6/cyrillic$a<name in Cyrillic with initials>$q(<qualifier in Cyrillic>) 400 1#$802\g$aZemtsovskii, Izalii Iosifovich 400 1#$aZemtsovskiy, I. 400 1#$802\g$6/cyrillic$a<name in Cyrillic> Subfield $8 contains the link number and field link type code; subfield $6 indicates Cyrillic script. It is interesting to note that virtually all systems that support input of multiscript MARC records, use repeating regular tags rather than 880 fields for tagged displays. Model B: Technically, Model B could also be used for alternate scripts. The separate records for alternative script representations would greatly limit use of the 880 field since non-Latin records would be built around the non-Latin script, declared in the 066 (Character Sets Present) field. There would be special complexity with parallel language of catalog records if separate records were used. In that case Model B might be used for the parallel heading data and Model A used within each parallel language record for alternate script data. Model B without field 880: If the 880 technique were abandoned, then Model B for alternative graphics would follow the outline of Model B for languages. Separate records would be created for the scripts with the two linked through the 7XX linking heading fields which would contain the alternative script form of the 1XX field. 066 $alatin$bextended latin$ccyrillic 100 1#$aZemtsovskii, I. I.$q(Izalii Iosifovich) 400 1#$aZemtsovskii, Izalii Iosifovich 400 1#$aZemtsovskiy, I. 700 1#$6/cyrillic$a<name in Cyrillic with initials>$q(<qualifier in Cyrillic>) 066 $acyrillic$bextended cyrillic$clatin 100 1#$a<name in Cyrillic with initials>$q(<qualifier in Cyrillic>) 400 1#$a<name in Cyrillic> 700 1#$6/latin$aZemtsovskii, I. I.$q(Izalii Iosifovich) Transliteration Some agencies need to provide transliterations for headings carried in authority records, especially the 1XX uniform heading, if its native script is not that of the catalog. Some of the reasons for inclusion of transliterated headings are that the transliterated form of a name appears on an item being cataloged, or because the cataloging practice is to provide transliterations of some or all of the data in a record. The latter may be needed in order to provide a complete alphabetic sorting of entries for displays. It may also be needed for systems and communications clients and servers in which only the local script is supported. In countries where the Latin script is the vernacular, for example, many systems and programs and much equipment may not accommodate non-Latin scripts, so romanization is used. Model A: Currently the transliterated forms of headings are recorded in the regular data fields as 1XX, 4XX, and 5XX headings. The transliteration scheme for the 1XX uniform heading can be indicated at a general level (international standard, national standard, local standard, conventional, etc.) in field 008. The particular transliteration (e.g., Wade-Giles or Pinyin) cannot be indicated for the 1XX, nor can transliteration be indicated for the 4XX and 5XX headings. Different cataloging agencies may prefer one transliteration over another as the standard for their catalog or a decision might be made to change from one scheme for the uniform headings to another. Both of these situations would benefit from designation of transliteration scheme used at the heading level. For example, changing from Wade-Giles to Pinyin has been under discussion for many years. In the NACO file, for Chinese headings the 1XX uniform heading is transliterated using Wade-Giles and one of the 4XX fields contains the Pinyin transliteration of the heading, but the Pinyin heading is not identified among the 4XX fields. One technique for identifying transliteration would be through the $6 subfield. The $6 subfield could be extended: $6<linking tag>-<occurrence number>/<script code>/<field orientation code>/<transliteration scheme> In the absence of a need for the first, second, or third items, the subfield would contain only the transliteration scheme: ///<transliteration scheme> 008/7 b [national standard] 040 $beng 110 10$aSoviet Union.$bPosolstvo (Egypt).$bMaktab al-sihafal 410 10$aRussia (1923- U.S.S.R.).$bPosolstvo (Egypt).$bMaktab al-sihafal.$6///<translit. scheme for Cyrillic>$6///<translit. scheme for Arabic> 008/7 b? or g? [national standard? conventional?] 040 $beng 151 ##$aMoscow (Russia) 451 ##$aMoskva (Russia)$6///<translit. scheme for Cyrillic> 451 ##$aMoscou (Russia)$6///<thanslit. scheme for Cyrillic> 451 ##$aMoskau (Russia)$6///<translit. scheme for Cyrillic> 451 ##$aMoscova (Russia)$6///<translit. scheme for Cyrillic> 451 ##$aMo-ssu-k'o (Russia)$6///<translit. scheme for Cyrillic> The level of scheme indication would needed to be worked out. There are many - perhaps hundreds - of transliteration schemes, besides the ALA tables standardly used in US libraries. Going to the specific level would be difficult, but the potential usefulness of the general level as it is now specified in the 008, needs to be examined. Model B: Using separate records for transliteration would be a variant of using deparate records for script. Country or Nationality Data Some cataloging agencies, particularly outside the US, want to be able to record the nationality of an entity so that a specific country's authors can be identified. The US practice has never advocated this because the information would be difficult to determine in many cases, increasing the cost of cataloging, and not seen as particularly valuable for retrieval. If nationality were carried in the record it could be at the record level thus would entail definition of 008 bytes and/or a variable field (if multiple nationalities needed to be recorded). Catalog Rules A final characteristic, that is consistently coded in MARC already, is the identification of the cataloging rules used to create the authority record. Field 008/10 and 11 identify the rules for names and subjects, with the possibility to record the information in 040 $e or $f if the rules are not specified in the codes defined for 008/10 and 11. Subjects and Classification Subject headings would have many of the same characteristics as names. Some are in a non-English language but intended for an English language catalog (e.g., Singspiele, Ojo de Dios (Talisman), and Commedia dell'arte). Some are transliterations (e.g., Haiku, Waka, and al-Jum'ah). With subjects there is the need to link different thesauri that are in the same language (e.g., LCSH and MESH) and in different languages (e.g., Canadian Subject Headings, LCSH, and Repertoire des vedettes-matiere). There are also script and transliteration needs (e.g., Savoskin, Anatolij Nikolajev$vBibliography and the multiscript translations of Dewey). SUMMARY The above discussion has suggested that the format be enabled to indicate language of catalog, language of heading, and transliteration at the field level and to begin using direct tagging of alternate script data. The indication of script explicitly at the field level also needs to be evaluated along with the codes that would be used. The new and augmented elements to enable this would be the following: - Use subfield $6 for script, field orientation, and transliteration by adding an indication of transliteration scheme in the following upward-compatible manner: $6<linking tag>-<occurrence number>/<script code> /<field orientation code>/<transliteration scheme> Note that the linking tag and occurrence number would no longer be needed in $6 except when the 880 is being used. If use of 880 is made obsolete, then the linking tag and occurrence number would also be, but the slash would probably need to be retained. - Define subfield $7 for language of heading at the field level - Use subfield $8 for linking alternate script in directly tagged fields, with code "g" defined for that linking use. The $8 data would be: $8<linking number>\g - Make field 880 obsolete. An IFLA Working Group on Authority data elements feel that adding the above new data elements to records would result in reduced cost of cataloging, since authority records could be shared and the same data elements found in all. They see field level information on language of heading, script and transliteration scheme as especially important but also support inclusion of nationality. QUESTIONS - Are systems likely to use the new data elements? - Would the NACO program endorse coding language of heading, transliteration, etc.? - What is the impact on utilities that support distribution using the 880 field? Would this benefit their international services? in the long run? - What would be the impact on local systems? - How many libraries are currently loading the vernacular that they receive from RLIN and OCLC? - Would authority records from other countries be more useful if they had the new data encoded? - Ceasing to use the 880 would be applied to other formats, especially bibliographic. Are there differences to note there?