
The phrase "Non-Latin script reference not evaluated" indicates that a record in a library cataloging system, like a Name Authority Record (NAR), includes a name or reference written in a non-Latin alphabet, such as Hindi (Devanagari), Chinese, Cyrillic, or Arabic, that has not yet been reviewed and standardized.
The note "Non-Latin script reference not evaluated" in a 667 field of a MARC authority record indicates that the non-Latin script variant access points (found in 4XX fields) within that record have not yet been reviewed and verified for accuracy and adherence to cataloging standards.
Example:
Consider an authority record for a person named "Xi Jinping." If the record includes variant access points in Chinese characters (a non-Latin script), and these Chinese variants have not been thoroughly evaluated, a 667 field would be added with this note.
100 1# $a Xi, Jinping.400 1# $a 习近平. 667 ## $a Non-Latin script reference not evaluated.
- 100 1# $a Xi, Jinping. represents the authorized access point in Latin script.
- 400 1# $a 习近平. represents a variant access point in Chinese characters (a non-Latin script).
- 667 ## $a Non-Latin script reference not evaluated. is the note indicating that the non-Latin script variant (the Chinese characters) has not yet been evaluated for accuracy and consistency.
Context in Cataloging and Authority Records
- Authority records: These are used to establish uniform headings for names, titles, and subjects to ensure consistency across a library's catalog. They connect variant names (cross-references) to the single, authorized heading. (know more: Authority record)
- Purpose of the note: When non-Latin script references were first added to name authority records, they were often automatically generated from existing bibliographic data. To distinguish these machine-derived references from those professionally reviewed, the note "Non-Latin script reference not evaluated" was automatically included.
- Evaluation process: When a cataloger evaluates and standardizes the non-Latin references according to the appropriate rules (e.g., RDA standards), this note is removed from the record.
- Transliteration inconsistencies: A name can have multiple, equally valid transliterations into the Latin alphabet, which can obscure identity.
- Cataloger expertise: Libraries often handle references in numerous languages and scripts. A single cataloger may not have the linguistic expertise to verify all of them.
- Romanization rules: Standardizing transliterations (romanization) requires specialized rules, which, for many scripts, were not fully developed or consistently applied when the references were first added.