Parking lot

Here the Instance MARC mapping WG will gather misc. bibliographic examples, use cases and ideas, which we need to circle back to at a later point:

Main titles, access points, and other fields in their original script and romanized forms: Current practice is to use the field 880 which is referenced by the marc field such as the 245 or 100. The non 880 field has the romanized form of the information (title, access point, etc.). The 880 has the corresponding information in the original script. An example is https://catalog.lib.uchicago.edu/vufind/Record/ocm39645716/Details#tabnav. Taking the title as an example, the title in the original script and romanized form are both the title of the resource just 2 linguistic representations of that title. It would be great to assign a qualifier to the main title that designates when the title is in the original script, romanized form and which one to display as the primary one. Instead of two repeated property entries, you could have two labels (ie latin script and original).
1. (Added by Christie Thomas) There is already a precedent for assigning a 'primary' flag to an entry in a repeatable / array object. See the example below for contributor:
  "contributors": [
           {
               "name": "Fu, Cuilian,",
               "primary": true,
               "contributorTypeText": "author.",
               "contributorNameTypeId": "2b94c631-fca9-4892-a730-03ee529ffe2a"
           },
           {
               "name": "付翠莲,",
               "primary": true,
               "contributorTypeText": "author.",
               "contributorNameTypeId": "2b94c631-fca9-4892-a730-03ee529ffe2a"
           }
       ],
  
  There is still an issue when there are multiple paired entries in a single array: it is not possible to know which two forms are pairs, therefore which romanized form is a transliteration of which vernacular script entry. It is also my understanding that ordering of strings in an array is not able to be prescribed, so any display of the strings would be unordered, which would compound this issue.
2. (Also added by Christie Thomas) In thinking about requirements for paired script fields in Inventory, I have come up with the following. Please add to them!
  1. For any MARC tags / subfields mapped to inventory, paired 880 fields should be mapped in the same way.
  2. Staff should be able to search on both the Latin and original script.
    1. In any given workflow, staff may only have one form or the other at their disposal.
  3. Institutions / staff should have the ability to display both the Latin and original script in the display to support the ability of staff without language expertise to manage resources.
    1. Potential additional functionality at a later date would be the ability to display only one form or the other, or both forms.
  4. The system should be able to pair the transliterated form to its original form.
    1. This is particularly important for repeatable elements that may have many entries, each with a transliteration.
xxxx
xxx