• Cataloging and Acquisitions Home
• About the Organization
• Contact
• FAQs
• News

• Acquisitions
• Resources for Cataloging
• Catalogs, Authority Records
• Classification and Shelflisting
• Cooperative Cataloging Programs
• Descriptive Cataloging
• Products for Purchase
• Publications, Reports
• Subject Headings & Genre/Form Terms

I. Background

These guidelines were developed jointly by the Policy and Standards Division at the Library of Congress, the Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (CC:DA) and the Committee on Cataloging: Asian and African Materials (CC:AAM) within the Cataloging and Classification Section of the American Library Association. The need for a formal procedure became apparent in recent efforts to revise certain Romanization tables. A draft was issued on June 15, 2010, with a request for feedback. The current procedure, dated August 13, 2010, is the result of that feedback and was printed in Cataloging Service Bulletin Issue 127 (PDF, 289 KB).

These guidelines apply to the creation of new tables and the revision of existing tables when needed and as applicable. Existing tables will not be explicitly revised to conform to these guidelines unless other major changes are warranted.

II. General Goals

1. Any future ALA/LC Romanization Tables should be transliteration schemes rather than schemes to replicate pronunciation or guides to pronunciation. Pronunciation is variable around the world
2. Any future ALA/LC Romanization Tables should enable machine-transliteration as much as possible and preferably reversible transliteration
3. Any future ALA/LC Romanization Tables should be in line with internationally accepted standards and/or standards officially sanctioned by the home country when possible
4. These goals may not always be met, but they should be applied on a case-by-case basis as best they can

III. Guidelines

1. Examine national and international standards before beginning the process of creating a new or revising an existing Romanization table
2. Mapping characters to the Latin script
   1. Take the equivalent characters used from the MARC Basic Latin script repertoire as much as possible
   2. Choose a Latin script equivalent for a non-Latin letter, not necessarily based on pronunciation of the letter, but so as to maximize clarity and minimize confusion with the transliteration of other letters. The resulting Latin script equivalents should allow for the reversal of Romanization as systematically as possible, without the application of special algorithms or contextual tests
   3. Avoid special Latin script alphabetic characters as they are not always widely supported in display and printing
   4. Include a table for numerals if the non-Latin script uses characters other than Western Arabic numerals
3. Modifiers
   1. Prefer single letter equivalents (e.g., š) to blends (e.g., sh), that is, multiple letter equivalents, unless there is no ambiguity in the use of the blend
   2. Use modifier characters (diacritical marks) in conjunction with the basic Latin script characters, but take care to avoid modifier characters that are not widely supported (e.g., ligature marks), or whose positioning over or under a Latin script base letter may interfere with the printing and/or display of that letter
   3. Above. Prefer to use the acute (´), grave (`), hacek (ˇ), breve (˘), dieresis (¨), tilde (˜), macron (¯), circumflex (ˆ), and dot above (˙), if needed
   4. Below. Avoid modifiers below characters, since they often interfere with portions of Latin letters that descend and when underlining is present. If a modifier below is desired, prefer the dot below (.) or the cedilla (¸)
4. Render marks used as guides to pronunciation as diacritics or punctuation marks when necessary to accommodate pronunciation
5. Non-alphabetic languages
   1. In dealing with non-alphabetic scripts, e.g., syllabic scripts, ideographs, the above guidelines should be applied to the extent that they can
   2. Any provisions for aggregation or word division should be based on such factors as international agreement, convenience of use, promotion of consistent application, and ease of online searching
6. Other factors. The impact of file maintenance on legacy records should be considered in revising tables in relation to the ease or difficulty of accomplishing it, the benefits provided by the revisions, and the obligations of and impact on various organizations and institutions

IV. Procedures

1. Forwarding proposed new or revised Romanization tables
   1. Submit all draft tables (new and revised) to the Policy and Standards Division, Library of Congress, as an attachment to an electronic mail message sent to [email protected]
   2. Submit all draft proposals as complete tables in an electronic format, e.g., Microsoft Word, so that the resultant file may be updated during the review process
   3. Clearly note the proposed revisions either 1) within the table itself or 2) as a separate document indicating what the proposed revisions are and the justification for them
   4. Provide pertinent justification, e.g., experts consulted, sources consulted, international standards found
2. Library of Congress review. The Policy and Standards Division and other Library staff with knowledge of the language or script will review draft tables (both new and revised)
3. Review by ALA and other stakeholders. After reaching consensus within the Library of Congress, the Library will seek comments from the appropriate committee within the American Library Association and the stakeholder community at large. This is done in several ways:
   1. Official notification to the appropriate ALA committee and posting the draft on the Cataloging and Acquisitions Web site with a request for comments usually within 90 days of the posting
   2. the draft will be sent to identified stakeholders with the same 90 days request for comments
   3. the availability of the draft will be noted in a posting to various electronic lists according to the language. See list below
4. Receipt of comments. The requests for comments will specify that such comments are to be sent to [email protected] by a specified date. The Policy and Standards Division and other Library of Congress staff will evaluate the comments as they are received. Once the Library reaches consensus, the division will revise the draft table as appropriate. The Policy and Standards Division will acknowledge the receipt of comments
5. Approval process. The Library of Congress will forward draft tables that have been completed to the chair of the appropriate committee as determined by the American Library Association. If the appropriate ALA committee has disagreements with the submitted draft table, it may be necessary to return to one of the steps above
6. The Library of Congress will issue status reports to the stakeholders and electronic lists
7. Approved tables. Once the appropriate committee has approved the draft table, the Policy and Standards Division will make any changes to the table as the result of this process, and post the approved table to the Cataloging and Acquisitions/ALA-LC Romanization Tables Web page

V. Electronic mail discussion lists

• Program for Cooperative Cataloging ([email protected])
• Autocat ([email protected])
• Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (CC:DA)
• Committee on Cataloging: African and Asian Materials (CC:AAM)
• Association of Jewish Libraries (AJL) ([email protected])
• Committee on East Asia Libraries ([email protected])
• Committee on Research Materials on Southeast Asia (CORMOSEA) ([email protected])
• Africana Librarians Council ([email protected])
• Middle East Librarians' Association (MELA) ([email protected])
• Committee on South Asian Libraries and Documentation (CONSALD) ([email protected])
• SLAVLIBS ([email protected]) (mail to [email protected])
• Asian, African, and Middle Eastern Section of the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL/AAMES)
• Hellenic Studies