Cyrillic Script Fields in Authority Records


At the time of writing (January 2016), non-Latin script fields are permitted for name (personal and corporate/conference), title, and geographic authority records. Non-Latin script fields are not permitted in LCSH records.

The cataloging community is still awaiting a widely agreed policy for the input of non-Latin scripts into authority records. Until such a policy is available, an interim policy is in place for NACO catalogers. Under the interim policy, addition of non-Latin fields is optional (but encouraged) and can be used in the following fields only:

    • 4XX Fields (i.e., 400, 410, 411, 430, and 451)

    • 667 Fields

    • 670 Fields

    • 675 Fields

Coding for authority records with non-Latin script fields includes:

    • Ref Status should be coded "b" if non-Latin script references are in the authority record. This is to reflect the current lack of a widely agreed standard for evaluating the variant access points in non-Latin script.

    • A 667 field should be added if non-Latin script references are present in the authority record with the following wording:

      • Non-Latin script reference not evaluated. [for an authority record with a single non-Latin script reference]

      • Non-Latin script references not evaluated. [for an authority record with multiple non-Latin script references]

Sometimes authority records include a 667 field with the information: Machine-derived non-Latin script reference project. This means that non-Latin variant access points were added during the automated pre-population process of NARs back in 2010, when a non-Latin form of name was taken from the parallel vernacular field in the associated bibliographic record.

Example (in MARC format):