IFLA Cataloguing Principles: Steps towards an International Cataloguing Code, 3: Report from the 3rd IFLA Meeting of Experts on an International Cataloguing Code, Cairo, Egypt, 2005 9783598440335, 9783598242786

Citation preview

International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions Fédération Internationale des Associations de Bibliothécaires et des Bibliothèques Internationaler Verband der bibliothekarischen Vereine und Institutionen Международная Федерация Библиотечных Ассоциаций и Учреждений Federación Internacional de Asociaciones de Bibliotecarios y Bibliotecas

ΎϫΪϫΎόϣϭ ΕΎΒΘϜϤϟ΍ ΕΎϴόϤΠϟ ϲϟϭΪϟ΍ ΩΎΤΗϹ΍

29 ϲϓ΍ήΟϮϴϠΒΒϟ΍ ςΒπϠϟ ϼϓϹ΍ ΔϠδϠγ

: ΔγήϬϔϠϟ ϼϓϹ΍ ΉΩΎΒϣ .3 ˬΔγήϬϔϠϟ ϲϟϭΩ ϦϴϨϘΗ ϮΤϧ Ε΍ϮτΧ

ˬΔϴϟϭΪϟ΍ ΔγήϬϔϟ΍ Ϊϋ΍Ϯϗ ϲϓ ˯΍ήΒΨϠϟ ϼϓϹ ΚϟΎΜϟ΍ ωΎϤΘΟϻ΍ ϝΎϤϋ΄Α ήϳήϘΗ .2005 ˬήμϣ ˬΓήϫΎϘϟ΍ Ω΍Ϊϋ·

ˬνΎϳέ ΪϤΤϣ ΪϟΎΧ ˬΖϴϠϴΗ .Ώ ΍ήΑέΎΑ ϥΎΘδϳήϛ ΏϮϟ Ύϧ΁ϭ

K · G · Saur München 2006

IFLA Series on Bibliographic Control Vol 29

IFLA Cataloguing Principles: Steps towards an International Cataloguing Code, 3

Report from the 3rd IFLA Meeting of Experts on an International Cataloguing Code, Cairo, Egypt, 2005 Edited by Barbara B. Tillett, Khaled Mohamed Reyad, and Ana Lupe Cristán

K · G · Saur München 2006

IFLA Series on Bibliographic Control The “IFLA Series on Bibliographic Control” continues the former “UBCIM Publications – New Series”.

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the internet at http://dnb.ddb.de.

U Printed on acid-free paper / Gedruckt auf säurefreiem Papier

© 2006 by International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, The Hague, The Netherlands All rights strictly reserved / Alle Rechte vorbehalten K. G. Saur Verlag GmbH, München 2006 Printed in Germany No part of this publication may be reproduced without permission in writing from the publisher / Jede Art der Vervielfältigung ohne Erlaubnis des Verlags ist unzulässig. Printed and Bound by Strauss GmbH, Mörlenbach ISBN 13: 978-3-598-24278-6 ISBN 10: 3-598-24278-6

Table of Contents = ‫ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮﻳﺎت‬ Welcome Words from the Head of the National Library of Egypt....................................7 9 ......................................................................................................................... ‫آﻠﻤﺔ اﻟﺘﺮﺣﻴﺐ‬ IFLA Welcome ...............................................................................................................11 Introduction ....................................................................................................................13 17 ................................................................................................................................ ‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ‬ Statement of International Cataloguing Principles.........................................................21 Statement of International Cataloguing Principles.........................................................22 Clean-copy Draft of April 2006.......................................................................................29 36 ...................................................................................................... ‫إﻋﻼن ﻣﺒﺎدئ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ‬ Glossary.........................................................................................................................44 47 ................................................................................................................................ ‫ﻣﺴﺮد‬ Summary Votes by the IME ICC1 and IME ICC2 on the Recommendations of the IME ICC3, March 2006 ..................................................................................................49 Presentation Papers ....................................................................................................55 55 .................................................................................................................... ‫ﻋﺮوض اﻷﺑﺤﺎث‬ IFLA’s ISBD Programme: Purpose, Process, and Prospects........................................57 66 ......................................‫ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ إﻓﻼ ﻟﻠﺘﻘﻨﻴﻦ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ ﻟﻠﻮﺻﻒ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻲ‬. ‫ ﺟﻮن د‬،‫ ﺟﻴﻮرﻳﻨﻲ ﻋﻦ ﺑﻴﺮوم‬،‫ﻣﺎورو‬ Brave New FRBR World ................................................................................................73 83 .......................................................................................................... ‫ﻋﺎﻟﻢ ﻓﺮﺑﺮ اﻟﺠﺮيء اﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪ‬ A Virtual International Authority File (VIAF)...................................................................90 104 ................................................................................................. ‫ﻣﻠﻒ اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎد اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ اﻻﻓﺘﺮاﺿﻲ‬ Lebanese Country Report............................................................................................117 Background Papers...................................................................................................119 119 .................................................................................................................. ‫اﻟﺨﻠﻔﻴﺎت اﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔ‬ Statement of Principles: Adopted by the International Conference on Cataloguing Principles Paris, October 1961 ...................................................................................121 126 ........................................ 1961 ‫ أآﺘﻮﺑﺮ‬،‫ ﺑﺎرﻳﺲ‬،‫ﻣﺒﺎدئ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ أﻗﺮهﺎ اﻟﻤﺆﺗﻤﺮ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ ﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ‬ Results of the code comparisons: a summary.............................................................130

5

‫ﻣﻘﺎرﻧﺎت اﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﻦ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺒﺎدئ ﺑﺎرﻳﺲ ‪136 ...............................................................................................‬‬ ‫‪Overview of the Draft Statement of International Cataloguing Principles ...................143‬‬ ‫‪Recommendations from the IME ICC3 Working Groups ......................................161‬‬ ‫اﻻﻗﺘﺮاﺣﺎت اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎت ﻋﻤﻞ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع اﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﻹﻓﻼ ﻟﻠﺨﺒﺮاء ﻓﻲ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ ‪161 ..........................‬‬ ‫‪Working Group 1 – Personal Names...........................................................................163‬‬ ‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﻷوﻟﻰ‪-‬أﺳﻤﺎء اﻷﺷﺨﺎص ‪167 ........................................................................................‬‬ ‫‪Working Group 2 – Corporate Names .........................................................................171‬‬ ‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪-‬أﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺎت ‪173 ............................................................................................‬‬ ‫‪Working Group 3 – Seriality.........................................................................................174‬‬ ‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﻟﺜﺎﻟﺜﺔ‪-‬اﻟﺘﺴﻠﺴﻞ‪176 ...................................................................................................‬‬ ‫‪Working Group 4 – Uniform Titles/GMD......................................................................177‬‬ ‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﻟﺮاﺑﻌﺔ‪-‬اﻟﻌﻨﺎوﻳﻦ اﻟﻤﻮﺣﺪة واﻟﺘﺄﺷﻴﺮة اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﺎء ‪179 ............................................................‬‬ ‫‪Working Group 5 – Multivolume/Multipart Structures ..................................................181‬‬ ‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﻟﺨﺎﻣﺴﺔ‪-‬ﺑﻨﻰ ﻣﺘﻌﺪد اﻟﻤﺠﻠﺪات‪/‬ﻣﺘﻌﺪد اﻷﺟﺰاء‪183 ..................................................................‬‬ ‫‪Appendices.................................................................................................................185‬‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻼﺣﻖ ‪185 ...........................................................................................................................‬‬ ‫‪AGENDA......................................................................................................................187‬‬ ‫اﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ‪189 ...........................................................................................................................‬‬ ‫‪ ....................................................................................191‬اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺒﻜﺔ اﻹﻧﺘﺮﻧﺖ = ‪WEB site‬‬ ‫‪IMEICC3 Planning Committee Members.....................................................................192‬‬ ‫=أﻋﻀﺎء اﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻟﻺﺟﺘﻤﺎع اﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﻹﻓﻼ ﻟﻠﺨﺒﺮاء ﻓﻲ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ‪192 .........................................‬‬ ‫‪..................................................................................................194‬اﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﻮن = ‪Participants‬‬ ‫‪Authors, Editors, Contributors, and Translators ..........................................................197‬‬ ‫ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﺑﺄﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻴﻦ‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﺤﺮرﻳﻦ‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﺴﺎهﻤﻴﻦ‪ ،‬واﻟﻤﺘﺮﺟﻤﻴﻦ ‪197 ..................................................................‬‬

‫‪6‬‬

Welcome Words from the Head of the National Library of Egypt Welcome to the land of peace and love – Egypt, the first National Library among Arab countries (Al-KotobKhana- Al-Khediwia) – (Dar-el-kotob) 23 March 1870. Dear members of the 3rd IFLA meeting of experts on an International Cataloguing Code, it is with great joy and satisfaction that we greet you and welcome in Cairo, Egypt. IFLA is keen to have the international library society participate by addressing new technical tools for global searching. For that purpose, IFLA invested the Internet as a low cost, famous, and 7 days a week, 24 hours a day communication media. This Cairo meeting is the third in a series of five regional meetings of cataloguing experts and rule makers, planned by the IFLA Cataloguing Section. The first meeting (for Europe) was held in Frankfurt, Germany in July 2003. The second meeting (for Latin America/Caribbean) was held in Buenos Aires, Argentina in 2004. This 3rd meeting in Cairo, will be followed by the following two meetings: Fourth meeting (for Asia) to be held at the National Library of Korea, Seoul, Korea August 2006, and the final or fifth meeting in 2007 (for Africa) in Durban, South Africa before the IFLA Conference. The year 2007 will also witness the following: AACR3 publication release, ISBN-13, and a Virtual International Authority File. One Goal for the five continuing regional meetings is to increase the ability to share cataloguing information worldwide by promoting standards for the content of bibliographic and authority records used in library catalogues. The Meeting’s Agenda comprises the following issues: Paris Principles, ISBD, FRBR, overview of current cataloguing code rule making bodies, Virtual International Authority File (VIAF), code comparisons with respect to Paris Principles, and discussions of personal names, corporate bodies, seriality, uniform titles/GMDs, and multipart structures. I wish to express my appreciation to the chair of this 3rd meeting: Dr. Barbara Tillett, Chief, Cataloging Policy and Support Office, Library of Congress. At the end I have a dream, may it become true! The dream is to create an integrated subject approach to information sources that integrates both verbal knowledge and notation representations schemes in one international multi-language tool. The goal is to unify different forms for subject or conceptual relationships (for example, broader, narrower, or related term relationships, such as those expressed in see or Use references or see also references) in the same international multi-language tool.

7

I wish each and every one of us a most rewarding, intellectually stimulating 3 days, joyful reunions, and enriching professional relationships. Once again welcome to IMEICC3 in Cairo! Dr. Sherif Kamel Mahmoud Shaheen Head of the National Library of Egypt Professor of Library & Information Science, Faculty of Arts, Cairo University [email protected]

8

‫آﻠﻤﺔ اﻟﺘﺮﺣﻴﺐ‬ ‫ﻣﺮﺣﺒﺎ ﺑﻜﻢ ﻓﻲ أرض اﻟﺴﻼم واﻟﻤﺤﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺼﺮ‪ ،‬ﺻﺎﺣﺒﺔ أول ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ وﻃﻨﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻮﻃﻦ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻲ )اﻟﻜﺘﺒﺨﺎﻧﺔ اﻟﺨﺪﻳﻮﻳﺔ( – دار اﻟﻜﺘﺐ‪،‬‬ ‫اﻟﺘﻲ أﻓﺘﺘﺤﺖ ﻓﻲ ‪ 23‬ﻣﺎرس ‪.1870‬‬ ‫اﻷﺧﻮة أﻋﻀﺎء اﻹﺟﺘﻤﺎع اﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻹﻓﻼ ﻟﻠﺨﺒﺮاء ﻓﻲ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬إﻧﻪ ﻟﻤﻦ دواﻋﻲ اﻟﺴﺮور أن ﻧﺮﺣﺐ ﺑﻜﻢ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﻣﺪﻳﻨﺔ اﻟﻘﺎهﺮة ﺑﺠﻤﻬﻮرﻳﺔ ﻣﺼﺮ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻔﺘﺮة ﻣﻦ ‪ 14-12‬دﻳﺴﻤﺒﺮ ‪.2005‬‬ ‫وﻟﻜﻢ هﻲ ﺣﺮﻳﺼﺔ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻹﻓﻼ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺸﺎرآﺔ اﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل وﺿﻊ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ ﻓﻨﻴﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪة ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮى اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ‪ .‬ﻣﻦ أﺟﻞ‬ ‫هﺬا اﻟﻐﺮض‪ ،‬ﺗﺴﺘﺜﻤﺮ اﻹﻓﻼ ﺷﺒﻜﺔ اﻹﻧﺘﺮﻧﺖ آﻮﺳﻴﻠﺔ إﺗﺼﺎل ﻗﻠﻴﻠﺔ اﻟﺘﻜﻠﻔﺔ وﻣﻌﺮوﻓﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮى اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ وﻣﺘﺎﺣﺔ ‪ 24‬ﺳﺎﻋﺔ ﻳﻮﻣﻴﺎ‪.‬‬ ‫إن اﺟﺘﻤﺎع اﻟﻘﺎهﺮة هﻮ اﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﺿﻤﻦ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻤﺲ اﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﺎت إﻗﻠﻴﻤﻴﺔ ﻟﺨﺒﺮاء اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ وواﺿﻌﻲ اﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ‪ ،‬هﺬﻩ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﺎت‬ ‫ﻣﻦ إﻋﺪاد ﻗﺴﻢ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ ﺑﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻹﻓﻼ‪.‬‬ ‫اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع اﻷول )ﻷوروﺑﺎ( ﻋﻘﺪ ﻓﻲ ﻓﺮاﻧﻜﻔﻮرت ﺑﺄﻟﻤﺎﻧﻴﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻳﻮﻟﻴﻮ ‪.2003‬‬ ‫اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ )ﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﺎ اﻟﻼﺗﻴﻨﻴﺔ وﻣﻨﻄﻘﺔ اﻟﻜﺎرﻳﺒﻲ( ﻋﻘﺪ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻮﻳﻨﺲ أﻳﺮس ﺑﺎﻷرﺟﻨﺘﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺎم ‪.2004‬‬ ‫اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع اﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻘﺎهﺮة )ﻟﻠﻤﻨﻄﻘﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ(‪ ،‬وﺳﻴﺘﺒﻌﻪ اﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻦ ﺁﺧﺮﻳﻦ‬ ‫اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع اﻟﺮاﺑﻊ )ﻵﺳﻴﺎ( ﺳﻮف ﻳﻌﻘﺪ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺔ اﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻮل ﺑﻜﻮرﻳﺎ اﻟﺠﻨﻮﺑﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ أﻏﺴﻄﺲ ‪.2006‬‬ ‫اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع اﻟﺨﺎﻣﺲ )ﻷﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺎ( ﻓﻲ دورﺑﺎن ﺑﺠﻨﻮب أﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺎ ﻗﺒﻞ اﺟﺘﻤﺎع اﻹﻓﻼ اﻟﺴﻨﻮي‬

‫ﻋﺎم‬

‫‪.2007‬‬

‫إن ﻋﺎم ‪ 2007‬ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﻨﺘﻈﺮ أن ﻳﺸﻬﺪ اﻵﺗﻲ‪:‬‬ ‫اﻹﺻﺪارة اﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪة ﻣﻦ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻷﻧﺠﻠﻮ‪-‬أﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ ‪ ،AACR3‬وﺑﺪء اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻳﻨﻈﺎم اﻟﺘﺮﻗﻴﻢ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ اﻟﻤﻮﺣﺪ ﻟﻠﻜﺘﺎب اﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪ‬ ‫‪ ،ISBN-13‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ إﻟﻰ اﻟﻤﻠﻒ اﻹﺳﺘﻨﺎدي اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ اﻹﻓﺘﺮاﺿﻲ‪.‬‬ ‫إن اﻟﻬﺪف اﻷﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﻟﻬﺬﻩ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﺎت اﻹﻗﻠﻴﻤﻴﺔ اﻟﺨﻤﺲ هﻮ زﻳﺎدة اﻟﻘﺪرة ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻮﺳﻴﻊ ﻗﺪر اﻟﻤﺴﺎهﻤﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ‪ ،‬وذﻟﻚ ﺑﺘﻔﻌﻴﻞ وﺧﻠﻖ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ ﻣﻦ أﺟﻞ اﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮى اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻲ واﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻹﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻓﻬﺎرس اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺎت‪.‬‬ ‫ﻳﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع اﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎت اﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪:‬‬ ‫ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ ﺑﺎرﻳﺲ‪ ،‬اﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﻦ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ ﻟﻠﻮﺻﻒ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻲ ‪ ،ISBD‬اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎت اﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ‪ ،FRBR‬ﻧﻈﺮة‬ ‫ﻋﺎﻣﺔ ﺣﻮل اﻟﻤﺆﺳﺴﺎت اﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ وﺿﻊ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﻠﻒ اﻹﺳﺘﻨﺎدي اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ اﻹﻓﺘﺮاﺿﻲ )‪ ،(VIAF‬ﻣﻘﺎرﻧﺎت اﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ‬ ‫وﻓﻘﺎ ﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ ﺑﺎرﻳﺲ‪ ،‬ورش ﻋﻤﻞ ﺣﻮل أﺳﻤﺎء اﻷﺷﺨﺎص‪-‬أﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺎت‪-‬اﻟﺘﺴﻠﺴﻞ‪-‬اﻟﻌﻨﺎوﻳﻦ اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻨﺔ‪/‬اﻟﺘﺄﺷﻴﺮات اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﺎء‪-‬ﺑﻨﻰ‬ ‫ﻣﺘﻌﺪد اﻷﺟﺰاء‪.‬‬ ‫أود أن أﻋﺒﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺧﺎﻟﺺ ﺗﻘﺪﻳﺮي ﻟﻠﺪآﺘﻮرة ﺑﺎرﺑﺮا ﺗﻴﻠﻴﺖ رﺋﻴﺲ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع اﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻹﻓﻼ ﻟﻠﺨﺒﺮاء ﻓﻲ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ ورﺋﻴﺲ ﻣﻜﺘﺐ وﺿﻊ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺎت ودﻋﻢ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ ﺑﻤﻜﺘﺒﺔ اﻟﻜﻮﻧﺠﺮس‪.‬‬ ‫وﻓﻲ اﻟﺨﺘﺎم‪ ،‬ﻟﺪي ﺣﻠﻢ‪ ،‬رﺑﻤﺎ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ؟! اﻟﺤﻠﻢ هﻮ إﻧﺸﺎء ﻧﻤﻮذج ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻲ ﻣﻮﺣﺪ ﻟﻤﺼﺎدر اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت اﻟﺘﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻧﻬﺎ ﺗﻮﺣﻴﺪ‬ ‫آﻼ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت اﻟﺸﻔﻬﻴﺔ واﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت اﻟﻤﺪﻋﻮﻣﺔ ﺑﻨﻤﺎذج ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺤﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻬﺪﻓﻨﺎ هﻮ ﺗﻮﺣﻴﺪ اﻷﺷﻜﺎل اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﺮأس اﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮع أو‬ ‫اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎت اﻟﻤﺘﺮاﺑﻄﺔ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴﺎ ﺑﻪ )ﻣﺜﺎل‪ :‬اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺢ اﻷوﺳﻊ‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺢ اﻷﺿﻴﻖ‪ ،‬أو اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺢ اﻟﻤﺮﺗﺒﻂ‪ ،‬واﻟﺘﻲ ﻋﺒﺮ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺑﻌﻼﻗﺎت‬ ‫اﻧﻈﺮ‪ ،‬أو اﺣﺎﻻت اﺳﺘﺨﺪم أو اﻧﻈﺮ أﻳﻀﺎ( وذﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل أداة دوﻟﻴﺔ ﻣﻮﺣﺪة ﻣﺘﻌﺪدة اﻟﻠﻐﺎت‪.‬‬ ‫أﺗﻤﻨﻰ ﻟﺠﻤﻴﻊ اﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﻴﻦ ﻋﻈﻴﻢ اﻹﺳﺘﻔﺎدة ﺧﻼل ﺛﻼث أﻳﺎم ﻣﻦ اﻟﺘﺤﺎآﻲ اﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻲ‪ ،‬واﻟﺘﻮﺣﺪ اﻹﺑﺪاﻋﻲ‪ ،‬وإﺛﺮاء اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎت اﻟﻤﻬﻨﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻣﺮة أﺧﺮى ﻣﺮﺣﺒﺎ ﺑﻜﻢ ﻓﻲ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع اﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻹﻓﻼ ﻟﻠﺨﺒﺮاء ﻓﻲ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺎهﺮة‪.‬‬ ‫أ‪.‬د‪ .‬ﺷﺮﻳﻒ ﺷﺎهﻴﻦ‬ ‫رﺋﻴﺲ دار اﻟﻜﺘﺐ اﻟﻤﺼﺮﻳﺔ‬ ‫أﺳﺘﺎذ ﻋﻠﻢ اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺎت واﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت‪ ،‬آﻠﻴﺔ اﻵداب‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﻘﺎهﺮة‬

‫‪9‬‬

IFLA Welcome Welcome on behalf of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions – better known as IFLA. This is the third IFLA Meeting of Experts on an International Cataloguing Code, sponsored by the IFLA Cataloguing Section and the IFLA Division IV: Bibliographic Control. We received administrative funds from IFLA, plus very generous support from OCLC (represented here today by Mr. Arthur Smith), also from the King Abdulaziz Public Library, the Bibliotheca Alexandrina, and the Library of Congress. The Cairo Office of the Library of Congress also contributed the personal time of many of their staff and their director, Mr. James Gentner, to assure the success of this meeting. Khaled Mohamed Reyad of the Library of Congress Cairo Office assisted with the editing the published meeting report. Ana Cristán at the Library of Congress provided wonderful support with the Web site, coordinating the Arabic and English texts, as well as assisting with the Web voting and editing the published meeting report. Ms. Annick Bernard formerly with the Bibliothèque national de France was of tremendous assistance in contacting participants in Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia. Mr. William Kopycki has joined us to not only provide English/Arabic translation, but also to provide a brief NACO training session. We also had support from our business services manager, Mr. Shalaby, who has been a tremendous help with local arrangements. Dr. Sharif Shaheen, the new head of the Egyptian National Library has joined us for welcoming remarks as well as offered to assist with coordinating the Arabic version of the Glossary. (A special thanks also to Dr. Sohair F. Wastawy, Chief Librarian at the Bibliotheca Alexandrina, who provided a tour of her beautiful library on December 14, 2005 and also treated the group to lunch at a seafood restaurant on the coast.) I thank them all. And I wish to personally thank the members of the IFLA Cataloguing Section, who are here with me today to provide background about IFLA initiatives that are relevant to our work at this important meeting: Mr. Mauro Guerrini from Italy, Mrs. Elena Escolano from Spain, and Mrs. Jaesun Lee from Korea. (Mrs. Lee also did a wonderful job of serving as an informal photographer and assistant for the infrastructure for the meeting as she prepares for the IME ICC4 meeting in Seoul). In 2001, Natalia Kasparova from the Russian State Library in Moscow, who was then a member of the IFLA’s Cataloguing Section, reminded us that it had been 40 years since the Paris Principles, and that those principles were in need of updating for today’s environment of online catalogues and Web OPACs (online public access catalogues). It took more than two years to finally meet in 2003 at the first IME ICC meeting in Frankfurt, Germany. We are now at the third in this series of regional meetings of rule makers and cataloguing experts. The second meeting was in Buenos Aires for the Latin American and Caribbean experts.

11

Next year we will meet in Seoul, Korea for the fourth meeting for the Asian part of the world, and the final meeting will be for the central and southern Africa, hosted by the National Library of South Africa. The purpose of these meetings is to examine the draft Statement of International Cataloguing Principles and to reach worldwide agreement on this statement. We also want to agree on some key terms for cataloguing. Our goal is to be able to share cataloguing information worldwide by promoting standards for the content of bibliographic and authority records used in library catalogues. During today and tomorrow we will focus our attention on updating the „Paris Principles” of 1961, incorporating terminology and concepts from some recent IFLA initiatives, including the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), and we will explore ways to reach greater harmonization of rules in the areas of personal names, corporate names, seriality, uniform titles, and multipart structures. You will be working together in five groups, and we will all hope that by the end of the meeting Tuesday, we will have recommendations to suggest to the previous IME ICC participants – a big step in reaching international agreement. This is a working meeting. Not only will you be working today and tomorrow, but also you are asked to continue to participate over at least the next two years as we reach worldwide agreement on the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles. I will explain more about the process soon. We are all here to share our expertise, to meet each other, and to discuss ways we can together improve the draft Statement. We will also be working together to agree on Arabic terminology for some new concepts and vocabulary. But this will not be all work and no play! A very important part of these regional meetings is to get to know each other and to have a chance to talk during more informal surroundings – tonight at the OCLC-sponsored dinner and tomorrow night at the „Light and Sound” show at the Great Pyramids of Giza, and Wednesday at the Bibliotheca Alexandrina. Yes, we will be working, but we also want this to be a memorable and enjoyable experience. It will certainly be an historic event, and you each have a part to play in representing your country and sharing what you learn here and bringing your ideas to the attention of librarians in your country when you return home. You also will be involved in the continuing discussions with the rest of the cataloguing world. I wish us all the very best in this good work and an enjoyable time here in Cairo, and I look forward to working with you all on this important initiative. A few words about the logo – the bottom half represents the major cities of the world and the top half is the upside-down skyline of the host city – in this case showing the Great Pyramids. Welcome. Barbara B. Tillett Chair, IFLA Division IV: Bibliographic Control and Chair, IME ICC Planning Committee

12

Introduction Barbara B. Tillett The Third IFLA Meeting of Experts on an International Cataloguing Code (IME ICC3) was held December 12-14, 2005 at the Pyramisa Hotel in Cairo, Egypt. This meeting continued the series of regional meetings worldwide to discuss a new statement of cataloguing principles with the rule makers around the world. It continued the work of the European and Anglo-American participants in Frankfurt in August 2003 and the Latin American and Caribbean participants in Buenos Aires in August 2004. Once again this third meeting provided an opportunity to get the cataloging experts from the Arabic-speaking Middle East together, most of them meeting for the first time, to get to know each other and to discuss together the basic principles of cataloguing in today’s environment. Invitations went out to 81 representatives from 18 countries in the Arabic-speaking Middle East: Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. The participants actively discussed issues on a listserv prior to the meeting. Due to the shortage of travel funds, some participants were not able to come to Cairo. Even so, 53 participants joined us in Cairo, representing 13 countries in the Middle East (the representatives from Algeria, Iran, Iraq, and Syria encountered difficulties traveling to Cairo). The members of the Planning Committee added 4 more countries: the United States of America, Spain, Italy, and Korea for a total of 59 registered attendees. A list of the invited Participants and Planning Committee members is included in this report. English and Arabic were the official languages of the meeting with simultaneous interpretation through the plenary sessions. Meetings of the Working Groups typically were held in Arabic or English. Hence, this report on the meeting is being presented in a bilingual format. As with the IME ICC2, a bilingual Web site was offered, this time in English and Arabic. As with the first two meetings, the goal of this series of IFLA regional meetings is to increase the ability to share cataloguing information worldwide by promoting standards for the content of bibliographic and authority records used in library catalogues. This goal continues the goal of the 1961 International Conference on Cataloguing Principles (better known as the „Paris Principles,” also under the auspices of IFLA) to provide international standardization of cataloguing rules and principles. The Paris Principles serve as the foundation of nearly every cataloguing code used in the world today. Objectives for this third meeting in Cairo were to review and update the September 2005 draft Statement of Principles from the 2003 Frankfurt meeting of European rule makers and country representatives as modified by the Latin American and Caribbean recommendations, and to enhance the accompanying Glossary with Arabic terminology for the key concepts in the principles. Another objective was to make recommendations for a possible future International Cataloguing Code. The recommendations will be forwarded to the IFLA Cataloguing Section Working Group devoted to this task.

13

The draft Statement of Principles will replace the 1961 Paris Principles and broaden them to cover all types of materials, not just books, and to cover description and access. The Paris principles were limited to choice and form of entry. Like the Paris Principles the current draft principles build on the great cataloging traditions of the world as well as the newly developed conceptual models from IFLA: FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic records), FRAD (Functional Requirements for Authority Data). A new IFLA group was started during 2005 to address subjects, FRSAR (Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records). First and foremost the principles are intended to serve the convenience of the users as the primary goal. The 1961 Paris Principles statement includes: scope, function, structure of the catalogue, kinds of entry, use of multiple entries, choice of uniform heading, single personal author, entry under corporate bodies – very limited situations, multiple authorship, works entered under title, including principles for uniform headings for works and other issues related to serials, and finally the entry word for personal names. The September 2005 draft from the Frankfurt meeting (Statement of International Cataloguing Principles) covers 1. Scope 2. Entities, Attributes, Relationships 3. Functions of the Catalogue 4. Bibliographic Description 5. Access Points 6. Authority Records 7. Foundations for Search Capabilities. The version of the draft Statement provided in this report shows the lined-through portions and new text suggested by the IME ICC3 participants. The „clean copy” represents the results of voting and discussion among the Middle Eastern participants and voting among the IME ICC1 and IME ICC2 participants. The Middle East has no rule making bodies and the countries typically follow the AngloAmerican Cataloguing Rules. In preparation for the meeting, as in Europe and the Latin American and Caribbean countries, the participants read the background papers and at the meeting heard presentations on how current cataloguing codes compare to the Paris Principles (Barbara Tillett), and an update on the International Standards for Bibliographic Description (Mauro Guerrini), and the FRBR (Elena Escolano) and Virtual International Authority File (VIAF) concepts (Barbara Tillett), and then began to discuss the draft Principles. There were Working Groups on the same 5 topics as at the previous 2 meetings. These Groups met at the end of the first day and again on the morning of the second day to develop specific recommendations for changes to the September 2005 draft. They reported out during a final plenary session to discuss their recommendations to improve the draft Statement of Principles, to modify the Glossary (particularly recommendations on terminology in Arabic), and to recommend specific cataloguing rules for an International Cataloguing Code.

14

The reports from each of the Working Groups are included in this volume, and briefly described as follows. WG 1, Personal Names (Iman Khairy, leader; Khaled Mohamed Reyad, recorder) The Group generally approved of the principles as they stand, but they made suggestions about many of the Glossary terms for Arabic equivalents and additions. They also made recommendations to initiate a cooperative Arabic authority file for classical and modern works, to unify local practices, to enhance Arabic bibliographic tools (by individuals and organizations), to change well-established names in English to their original forms (e.g., from Alhazen to Ibn alHaytham), and to work on creating Arabic Rule Interpretations. WG 2, Corporate Bodies (Ali Shaker, leader; Mona Abdel Kader, recorder) For the principle 5.1.2.1, given the problems with the English use of the word „persona,” the Group suggested to use instead „distinctive entity” or add the word „persona” to the Glossary with a clear definition. Regarding principle 5.1.3, Language, they suggested that the principle needs to be clear that „references” refers to reference sources not cross-references. For principle 5.4.1.1, on Corporate Names, the majority agreed to keep the wording as is, except to fix a typo („from” should be „form”). They noted many local practices differ from this principle and the rules. For the Glossary, they suggested adding terms for „users of the catalog” and for „persona” and to delete the term „agent.” WG 3, Seriality (Walid Ghali Nasr, leader; Wessam Samir, recorder) The Group agreed with the principles but also would like to see more flexibility in the serials area. For the Glossary they wanted to refine Arabic translations of terms. They further recommended more flexibility to suit the increasing number of serial records, to have standards on publication in the Middle East, and to more widely use ISSN and CIP. WG 4, Uniform Titles and GMD (Nedal Fayez al-Shourbagy, leader; Mahmoud Rashad, recorder) For principle 5.5.1.1, Uniform titles, the Group suggested changing the exception to indicate „in some circumstances the commonly used title in the language and script of the catalogue should be used rather than the title found in manifestations or reference sources.” The Group felt the GMD should be mandatory, but the placement of it needs further discussion. WG 5, Multipart Structures (Abderrahim Ameur, leader; Sherief Ra’ouf, recorder) The Group generally agreed with the draft principles but commented on 7.1.3 that names of additional creators beyond the first should have no limits on how many can be provided. For the Glossary, they suggested some new Arabic equivalents for some of the terms, and they felt more explanation was needed for the term „manifestation” in English. They further recommended that future cataloging rules address making individual bibliographic records for individual works within multipart structures with a collective title (analyze the individual works). They also recommended to work within IFLA and in regional and national institutions to motivate Arab publishers to work with libraries in each country to help with bibliographic control. Additionally, they recommended working with system vendors to implement these principles in future integrated library systems. So in general there was agreement with the September 2005 draft with a few suggestions for improvements. It was a pleasure to see the momentum started for future accomplishments in the Arabic-speaking Middle East and general support for the principles draft.

15

The recommendations from the Cairo participants were then shared with the other Middle Eastern participants through the meeting’s Web-based listserv to be sure everyone agreed, and following some discussion the results were then forwarded to the IME ICC1 and IME ICC2 participants for their vote in March 2006. The issue of adding the GMDs to the list of mandatory elements is still under discussion but included in the „clean copy,” because it was supported by the majority of voters. The revised draft statement has been publicly posted on the Web sites for IME ICC1 and IME ICC2 as well as printed in this publication for discussion and comment. We continue to share it within the appropriate IFLA sections and members as well as with various professional library organizations throughout the world. The original draft statement has now been translated and is available on the Web site in the following languages: Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Lithuanian, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Slovak, Spanish (Spain), and Spanish (Latin America). Additional translations are encouraged and will be posted on the Web site. A brief report of the meeting was published in ICBC (International Cataloguing and Bibliographic Control – an IFLA newsletter). We continue to encourage participants to publish articles and to give presentations about the draft statement and recommendations. Next meetings are planned for August 2006 in Seoul (again with rule makers) hosted by the National Library of Korea, and a final meeting for central and southern African cataloguing experts in 2007 hosted by the National Library of South Africa before the IFLA meeting in Durban. This is a very exciting process, intended to provide guidance to simplify cataloging practices and improve the user’s experience in finding information they need. We also hope the basic principles will be useful to other communities. As noted for the first two meetings, although this is a long process and a lot of work has yet to be done, we are all hopeful that these meetings and the resulting international agreement on a Statement of International Cataloguing Principles will lead to greater ability to share cataloguing information – bibliographic and authority records around the world.

16

‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﻘﺪ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻔﺘﺮة ﻣﻦ ‪ 14-12‬دﻳﺴﻤﺒﺮ ﺑﻔﻨﺪق ﺑﻴﺮاﻣﻴﺰا ﺑﻤﺪﻳﻨﺔ اﻟﻘﺎهﺮة ﺑﻤﺼﺮ اﻹﺟﺘﻤﺎع اﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻹﻓﻼ ﻟﻠﺨﺒﺮاء ﻓﻲ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ‬ ‫اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺑﻬﺬا اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع ﺗﺘﻮاﺻﻞ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﺎت اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻤﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ أﺟﻞ ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ ﺑﻴﺎن ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ ﻣﻊ واﺿﻌﻲ‬ ‫اﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ ﺣﻮل اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ‪ .‬ﻳﻜﻤﻞ هﺬا اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع ﻣﺎ ﺳﺒﻖ اﻟﻘﻴﺎم ﺑﻪ اﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﻮن ﻓﻲ أوروﺑﺎ واﻟﺪول اﻷﻧﺠﻠﻮ‪-‬أﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ اﺟﺘﻤﺎع‬ ‫ﻓﺮاﻧﻜﻔﻮرت ﻓﻲ أﻏﺴﻄﺲ ﻋﺎم ‪ ،2003‬واﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﻮن ﻣﻦ أﻣﺮﻳﻜﺎ اﻟﻼﺗﻴﻨﻴﺔ وﻣﻨﻄﻘﺔ اﻟﻜﺎرﻳﺒﻲ ﻓﻲ اﺟﺘﻤﺎع ﺑﻮﻳﻨﺲ أﻳﺮس ﻓﻲ‬ ‫أﻏﺴﻄﺲ ﻋﺎم ‪ .2004‬ﻣﺮة أﺧﺮى ﻧﻨﻮﻩ ﺑﺄن هﺬا اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع اﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﻳﻤﻨﺢ ﻓﺮﺻﺔ اﻟﺘﻼﻗﻲ ﻟﺨﺒﺮاء اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻌﺮب ﺑﻤﻨﻄﻘﺔ اﻟﺸﺮق‬ ‫اﻷوﺳﻂ ﻣﻌﺎ‪ ،‬واﻟﻤﻌﻈﻢ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﻳﻠﺘﻘﻮن ﻷول ﻣﺮة‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺘﺸﺎرآﻮا ﺧﺒﺮاﺗﻬﻢ وﻳﺘﻨﺎﻗﺸﻮا ﺳﻮﻳﺎ اﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ اﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻴﺌﺘﻬﺎ‬ ‫اﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺗﻤﺖ دﻋﻮة ‪ 81‬ﺷﺨﺼﺎ ﻳﻤﺜﻠﻮن ‪ 18‬دوﻟﺔ ﻋﺮﺑﻴﺔ وﺷﺮق أوﺳﻄﻴﺔ هﻲ‪ :‬اﻟﺠﺰاﺋﺮ‪ ،‬اﻟﺒﺤﺮﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﻣﺼﺮ‪ ،‬إﻳﺮان‪ ،‬اﻟﻌﺮاق‪ ،‬اﻷردن‪،‬‬ ‫اﻟﻜﻮﻳﺖ‪ ،‬ﻟﺒﻨﺎن‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺒﻴﺎ‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﻐﺮب‪ ،‬ﻋﻤﺎن‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﺴﻄﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﻗﻄﺮ‪ ،‬اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮرﻳﺎ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﻧﺲ‪ ،‬اﻹﻣﺎرات‪ ،‬واﻟﻴﻤﻦ‪ .‬وﻟﻘﺪ ﻧﺎﻗﺶ اﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﻮن‬ ‫ﺑﻔﺎﻋﻠﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎت اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل اﻟﺘﻮاﺻﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﺒﺮﻳﺪ اﻻآﺘﺮوﻧﻲ‪ .‬ﻧﻈﺮا ﻟﻠﻘﺼﻮر ﻓﻲ دﻋﻢ رﺣﻼت اﻟﺴﻔﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﺾ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺪﻋﻮﻳﻦ ﻟﻢ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻌﻮا اﻟﺤﻀﻮر ﻟﻠﻘﺎهﺮة‪ .‬ﻟﺬا ﻓﻘﺪ ﺣﻀﺮ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع ‪ 53‬ﺷﺨﺼﺎ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻣﻤﺜﻠﻴﻦ ‪ 13‬دوﻟﺔ‪ .‬واﺿﻴﻔﺖ إﻟﻰ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺎت‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﻴﻦ أرﺑﻊ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺎت أﺧﺮى ﻣﻦ أﻋﻀﺎء ﻟﺠﻨﺔ اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻢ وهﻲ‪ :‬اﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎت اﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪة اﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ‪ ،‬إﺳﺒﺎﻧﻴﺎ‪ ،‬إﻳﻄﺎﻟﻴﺎ‪ ،‬وآﻮرﻳﺎ‪ .‬وﻣﻠﺤﻖ‬ ‫ﺑﻬﺬا اﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﺑﺄﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﻴﻦ وأﻋﻀﺎء ﻟﺠﻨﺔ اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻢ‪.‬‬ ‫اﻹﻧﺠﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ واﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ هﻤﺎ اﻟﻠﻐﺘﺎن اﻟﺮﺳﻤﻴﺘﺎن ﻟﻬﺬا اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع ﻣﻊ اﻟﺤﺼﻮل ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ ﻓﻮرﻳﺔ ﺧﻼل اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﺎت‪ .‬إن ﻟﻘﺎءات‬ ‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎت اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻘﺪت ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ أو اﻻﻧﺠﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ‪ ،‬وﻣﻦ ﺛﻢ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈن هﺬا اﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﺳﻴﻌﺮض ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺘﻴﻦ‪ .‬آﻤﺎ هﻮ اﻟﺤﺎل ﻓﻲ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع‬ ‫اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈن اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺒﻜﺔ اﻻﻧﺘﺮﻧﺖ‪ ،‬هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﺮة ﺳﻴﻜﻮن ﺑﺎﻹﻧﺠﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ واﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻣﺜﻴﻼ ﻷول اﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈن اﻟﻬﺪف ﻣﻦ هﺬﻩ اﻟﺴﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﺎت ﺗﺤﺖ اﺷﺮاف اﻹﻓﻼ ﻟﺘﻬﺪف إﻟﻰ زﻳﺎدة اﻟﻘﺪرة ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﺔ‬ ‫ﻓﻲ ﺑﻨﺎء اﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ ﻟﻠﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ ﺑﻌﺮض أﺳﺲ ﻟﻠﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ واﻹﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﺑﻔﻬﺎرس اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺎت‪ .‬هﺬا اﻟﻬﺪف‬ ‫ﻳﻜﻤﻞ هﺪف اﻟﻤﺆﺗﻤﺮ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ ﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ ﻋﺎم ‪) 1961‬واﻟﻤﻌﺮوف ﺑﻘﻮاﻋﺪ ﺑﺎرﻳﺲ( ﺑﻮﺿﻊ أﺳﺎس دوﻟﻲ ﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ وﻣﺒﺎدئ‬ ‫اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ‪ .‬إن ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ ﺑﺎرﻳﺲ آﺎﻧﺖ ﺑﻤﺜﺎﺑﺔ اﻷﺻﻞ ﻟﻤﻌﻈﻢ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺎﻟﻤﻨﺎ اﻟﺤﺎﻟﻲ‪ .‬أهﺪاف اﺟﺘﻤﺎع اﻟﻘﺎهﺮة ﺗﻨﺼﺐ ﺣﻮل‬ ‫ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺔ وﺗﺤﺪﻳﺚ ﻣﺴﻮدة ﺑﻴﺎن اﻟﻤﺒﺎدئ اﻟﺼﺎدر ﻓﻲ ﺳﺒﺘﻤﺒﺮ ‪ 2005‬اﻟﻤﺸﺘﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻢ وﺿﻌﻪ ﻓﻲ اﺟﺘﻤﺎع ﻓﺮاﻧﻜﻔﻮرت ‪2003‬‬ ‫وﻣﺎ ﺗﻢ ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻠﻪ وﻓﻖ ﺗﻮﺻﻴﺎت اﺟﺘﻤﺎع ﺑﻮﻳﻨﺲ أﻳﺮس ‪ ،2004‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ إﻟﻰ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺚ اﻟﻤﺴﺮد ﺑﺈﺿﺎﻓﺔ اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ وﻓﻘﺎ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﻘﻮاﻋﺪ‪ .‬هﺪف ﺁﺧﺮ ﻣﻦ هﺬا اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع هﻮ وﺿﻊ ﻣﻘﺘﺮﺣﺎت ﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺒﻞ ﻣﺄﻣﻮل ﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ‪ .‬هﺬﻩ اﻻﻗﺘﺮاﺣﺎت ﺳﻮف‬ ‫ﺗﺤﻮل إﻟﻰ ﻗﺴﻢ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎت اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ ﺑﺈﻓﻼ ﻟﻠﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﻘﺘﺮﺣﺎت‪.‬‬

‫‪17‬‬

‫إن ﻣﺴﻮدة إﻋﻼن اﻟﻤﺒﺎدئ ﺳﺘﺤﻞ ﻣﺤﻞ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ ﺑﺎرﻳﺲ ﻋﺎم ‪ 1961‬وﺑﺸﻜﻞ أوﺳﻊ ﺳﺘﻐﻄﻲ آﺎﻓﺔ أﺷﻜﺎل اﻷوﻋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻘﻂ اﻟﻜﺘﺐ‪،‬‬ ‫وآﺬا ﻣﻦ أﺟﻞ اﻟﻮﺻﻒ واﻹﺗﺎﺣﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ إن ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ ﺑﺎرﻳﺲ آﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﺤﺪدة اﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎرات ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﻜﻞ واﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ‪ .‬آﻤﺎ هﻮ اﻟﺤﺎل‬ ‫ﻓﻲ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ ﺑﺎرﻳﺲ ﻓﺈن اﻟﻤﺴﻮدة اﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺒﺎدئ ﺑﻨﻴﺖ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺗﻘﺎﻟﻴﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ آﻤﺎ هﻮ اﻟﻮﺿﻊ ﻣﻊ اﻟﻨﻤﺎذج اﻟﻤﻄﻮرة‬ ‫ﺣﺪﻳﺜﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ اﻹﻓﻼ‪) ،FRBR :‬اﺧﺘﺼﺎرا ﻟﻼﺣﺘﻴﺎﺟﺎت اﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺴﺠﻴﺎت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ( ‪) ،FRAD‬اﺧﺘﺼﺎرا ﻟﻼﺣﺘﻴﺎﺟﺎت‬ ‫اﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎت اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎد(‪ .‬وﻗﺪ أﻧﺸﺌﺖ اﻹﻓﻼ ﻋﺎم ‪ 2005‬ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎت ﻋﺮﻓﺖ ب ‪) ،FRSAR‬اﺧﺘﺼﺎرا‬ ‫ﻟﻼﺣﺘﻴﺎﺟﺎت اﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺿﻮع(‪ .‬وأول اﻷهﺪاف وأهﻤﻬﺎ أن ﺗﻌﻤﻞ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻘﺎم اﻷول ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﺗﻮﻓﻴﺮ ﺧﺪﻣﺔ ﻣﺒﺴﻄﺔ وﻣﻴﺴﺮة ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪﻳﻦ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺗﻀﻤﻨﺖ ﻣﺒﺎدئ ﺑﺎرﻳﺲ ﻋﺎم ‪ 1961‬ﻣﺎ ﻳﻠﻲ‪ :‬اﻟﻤﺠﺎل‪ ،‬اﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻨﺎء اﻟﻔﻬﺮس‪ ،‬أﻧﻮاع اﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ‪ ،‬اﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻟﻤﺪاﺧﻞ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﺪدة‪،‬‬ ‫اﺧﺘﻴﺎر اﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ اﻟﻤﻮﺣﺪ‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﺆﻟﻒ اﻟﺸﺨﺺ اﻟﻤﻔﺮد‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ ﺑﺄﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺎت )ﻓﻲ ﺣﺎﻻت ﻣﺤﺪودة(‪ ،‬اﻟﺘﺄﻟﻴﻒ اﻟﻤﺘﺸﺎرك‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﺪاﺧﻞ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻨﻮان‪ ،‬اﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺪاﺧﻞ اﻟﻤﻮﺣﺪة‪ ،‬ﻟﻸﻋﻤﺎل اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺪورﻳﺎت‪ ،‬وأﺧﻴﺮا ﻣﺪاﺧﻞ اﻷﺷﺨﺎص‪ .‬إن ﻣﺴﻮدة ﺳﺒﺘﻤﺒﺮ‬ ‫‪ 2005‬اﻟﻤﻨﺒﺜﻘﺔ ﻋﻦ اﺟﺘﻤﺎع ﻓﺮاﻧﻜﻔﻮرت )إﻋﻼن ﻣﻴﺎدئ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ( ﻟﺘﻐﻄﻲ اﻵﺗﻲ‪:‬‬ ‫‪ .1‬اﻟﻤﺠﺎل‬ ‫‪ .2‬اﻟﻜﻴﺎﻧﺎت‪ ،‬اﻟﺼﻔﺎت‪ ،‬اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎت‬ ‫‪ .3‬وﻇﻴﻔﺔ اﻟﻔﻬﺮس‬ ‫‪ .4‬اﻟﻮﺻﻒ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻲ‬ ‫‪ .5‬ﻧﻘﺎط اﻹﺗﺎﺣﺔ‬ ‫‪ .6‬اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻹﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ‬ ‫‪ .7‬أﺳﺲ إﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺎت اﻟﺒﺤﺚ‬ ‫وﻣﺴﻮدة اﻹﻋﻼن‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﺘﻀﻤﻨﺔ ﻓﻲ هﺬا اﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ‪ ،‬ﻟﺘﺒﻴﻦ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻢ اﻗﺘﺮاﺣﻪ ﺑﻮاﺳﻄﺔ اﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع اﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﻹﻓﻼ ﻟﻠﺨﺒﺮاء ﻓﻲ‬ ‫اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ ﺣﻮل ﻧﻘﺎط هﺬا اﻹﻋﻼن اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ذآﺮهﺎ‪ .‬إن اﻟﺸﻜﻞ اﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻲ ﻟﻺﻋﻼن ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻟﺘﺼﻮﻳﺖ واﻟﻤﻨﺎﻗﺸﺎت ﺑﻴﻦ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﺔ اﻟﺸﺮق اﻷوﺳﻂ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ إﻟﻰ اﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻦ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﻴﻦ‪.‬‬ ‫إن ﻣﻨﻄﻘﺔ اﻟﺸﺮق اﻷوﺳﻂ ﻻ ﺗﺘﺒﻨﻰ وﺿﻊ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ ﻟﻠﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ ﺣﻴﺚ إن دوﻟﻬﺎ ﺗﺘﺒﻊ اﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ اﻷﻧﺠﻠﻮ‪-‬أﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫آﺈﻋﺪاد ﻟﻬﺬا اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع‪ ،‬آﻤﺎ ﺗﻢ ﻓﻲ اﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ أوروﺑﺎ وأﻣﺮﻳﻜﺎ اﻟﻼﺗﻴﻨﻴﺔ وﻣﻨﻄﻘﺔ اﻟﻜﺎرﻳﺒﻲ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮم اﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﻮن ﺑﻘﺮاءة اﻷوراق‬ ‫اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺨﻠﻔﻴﺎت اﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔ ﺣﻮل ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎت اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ إﻟﻰ اﻻﺳﺘﻤﺎع ﻟﻌﺮوض اﻷﺑﺤﺎث ﺣﻮل ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ ﻣﻘﺎرﻧﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﻘﻮاﻋﺪ ﺑﺎرﻳﺲ )ﺑﺎرﺑﺮا ﺗﻴﻠﻴﺖ(‪ ،‬وآﺬﻟﻚ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺚ اﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﺻﻒ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻲ )ﻣﺎورو ﺟﻴﻮرﻳﻨﻲ(‪ ،‬و ‪) FRBR‬إﻟﻴﻨﺎ‬ ‫اﺳﻜﻮﻻﻧﻮ(‪ ،‬وﻣﻔﺎهﻴﻢ اﻟﻔﻬﺮس اﻹﺳﺘﻨﺎدي اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ اﻻﻓﺘﺮاﺿﻲ )‪ VIAF‬ﻟﺒﺎرﺑﺮا ﺗﻴﻠﻴﺖ(‪ .‬ﺣﻴﻨﺌﺬ ﺗﺒﺪأ اﻟﻤﻨﺎﻗﺸﺎت ﺣﻮل ﻣﺴﻮدة‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺒﺎدئ‪ .‬آﺎﻧﺖ هﻨﺎك ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎت ﻋﻤﻞ ﻟﻨﻔﺲ اﻟﺨﻤﺲ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎت اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻢ ﺗﻨﺎوﻟﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻦ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ اﺟﺘﻤﻌﺖ هﺬﻩ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎت ﻓﻲ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ اﻟﻴﻮم اﻷول ﻣﻦ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع وآﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﻲ ﺻﺒﺎح اﻟﻴﻮم اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﻦ أﺟﻞ وﺿﻊ ﻣﻘﺘﺮﺣﺎت ﻣﺤﺪدة ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮات ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﻣﺴﻮدة ﺳﺒﺘﻤﺒﺮ ‪ .2005‬وﻗﺎﻣﺖ ﺗﻠﻚ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎت ﺑﺘﻘﺪﻳﻢ ﺗﻘﺎرﻳﺮهﺎ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺠﻠﺴﺔ اﻟﺨﺘﺎﻣﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ أﺟﻞ ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ اﻟﻤﻘﺘﺮﺣﺎت وﺗﺤﺪﻳﺚ‬ ‫ﻣﺴﻮدة إﻋﻼن اﻟﻤﺒﺎدئ‪ ،‬وآﺬا ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻞ اﻟﻤﺴﺮد )ﺑﺨﺎﺻﺔ اﻟﻤﻘﺘﺮﺣﺎت اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺘﻨﺎول اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺢ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻲ(‪ ،‬وﻣﻦ أﺟﻞ اﻗﺘﺮاح ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ‬ ‫ﻓﻬﺮﺳﺔ ﺗﻀﺎف ﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫اﻟﺘﻘﺎرﻳﺮ اﻟﻤﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎت اﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻣﺘﻀﻤﻨﺔ ﻓﻲ هﺬا اﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ‪ ،‬واﺧﺘﺼﺎرا ﻧﻘﺪﻣﻬﺎ آﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ‪:‬‬ ‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﻷوﻟﻰ‪ :‬أﺳﻤﺎء اﻷﺷﺨﺎص )إﻳﻤﺎن ﺧﻴﺮي‪ ،‬رﺋﻴﺴﺎ ؛ ﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ رﻳﺎض‪ ،‬ﻣﻘﺮرا(‬ ‫أﺟﻤﻊ اﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﻮن ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻤﻮاﻓﻘﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻤﺒﺎدئ اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﻤﺴﻮدة ﺑﻴﺎن ﻣﺒﺎدئ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻤﻴﺔ اﻟﺼﺎدرة ﻓﻲ ﺳﺒﺘﻤﺒﺮ ‪،2005‬‬ ‫وﻟﻜﻨﻬﻢ أﺑﺪوا اﻗﺘﺮاﺣﺎﺗﻬﻢ ﺣﻮل ﻋﺪد ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺴﺮد ﺳﻮاء ﻓﻲ ﻟﻐﺘﻪ اﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ أو ﻓﻲ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺘﻪ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻼ وﺣﺬﻓﺎ وإﺿﺎﻓﺔ‪ .‬ﻋﻼوة ﻋﻠﻰ اﻗﺘﺮاﺣﺎﺗﻬﻢ ﺣﻮل إﻧﺸﺎء ﻣﻠﻒ اﺳﺘﻨﺎدي ﺗﻌﺎوﻧﻲ ﻟﻸﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ )اﻟﻜﻼﺳﻴﻜﻴﺔ‪/‬اﻟﺤﺪﻳﺜﺔ(‪ ،‬و‬ ‫ﺗﻮﺣﻴﺪ اﻟﻤﻤﺎرﺳﺎت اﻟﻤﺤﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬وﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ أدوات اﻟﻀﺒﻂ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺑﻮاﺳﻄﺔ اﻟﻤﺆﺳﺴﺎت وﻟﻴﺲ اﻷﻓﺮاد‪ ،‬وﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻷﺳﻤﺎء‬ ‫اﻟﻜﻼﺳﻴﻜﻴﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺄﺷﻬﺮ ﻋﻠﻤﺎء اﻟﺤﻀﺎرة اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺷﻜﻠﻬﺎ اﻷﺟﻨﺒﻲ إﻟﻰ ﺷﻜﻠﻬﺎ اﻷﺻﻠﻲ )ﻣﺜﻞ اﺑﻦ ﺳﻴﻨﺎ واﺑﻦ رﺷﺪ‬ ‫واﺑﻦ ﺑﺎﺟﺔ واﺑﻦ اﻟﻬﻴﺜﻢ(‪ ،‬وإﻋﺪاد أداة ﻗﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻣﻮﺣﺪة ﻟﻨﻘﺤﺮة اﻷﺳﻤﺎء اﻷﺟﻨﺒﻴﺔ إﻟﻰ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻣﺜﻴﻼ ﻟﻸدوات اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﻧﻘﺤﺮة اﻷﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ إﻟﻰ ﻟﻐﺎت أﺟﻨﺒﻴﺔ‪ ،‬وآﺬﻟﻚ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ إﻧﺸﺎء ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮات ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪18‬‬

‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ :‬أﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺎت )ﻋﻠﻲ ﺷﺎآﺮ‪ ،‬رﺋﻴﺴﺎ ؛ ﻣﻨﻰ ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﻘﺎدر‪ ،‬ﻣﻘﺮرا(‬ ‫ﺑﺨﺼﻮص اﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪة رﻗﻢ ‪ 5.1.2.1‬اﻟﺘﺒﺲ اﻷﻣﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺑﺸﺄن اﻟﻤﻘﺼﻮد ﺑﻜﻠﻤﺔ ”‪ .„persona‬وﻣﻦ ﺛﻢ اﻗﺘﺮﺣﺖ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ‬ ‫إﻣﺎ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺑﺄﺧﺮى )ﻣﺜﻞ ‪ (distinctive entity‬أو إﺿﺎﻓﺔ اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ إﻟﻰ ﻣﺴﺮد اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت‪ ،‬ﻣﺼﺤﻮﺑﺔ ﺑﺘﻌﺮﻳﻒ واﺿﺢ‪.‬‬ ‫وﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﻋﺪة رﻗﻢ ‪ 5.1.3‬اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﺘﺒﺲ اﻷﻣﺮ أﻳﻀﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺣﻮل ﻣﺎ إذا آﺎن هﺬا اﻟﺠﺰء ﻳﺘﺤﺪث ﻋﻦ ﻟﻐﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺔ أم ﻟﻐﺔ اﻟﻮﻋﺎء‪ .‬وﻣﻦ ﺛﻢ اﻗﺘﺮﺣﺖ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ إﺑﺮاز ﻟﻐﺔ اﻟﻮﻋﺎء ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎرهﺎ اﻷﺳﺎس ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ‪ .‬وﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ إﻟﻰ ذﻟﻚ‬ ‫ﺗﺮى اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ أن آﻠﻤﺔ ”‪ „references‬هﻨﺎ ﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﺑﻬﺎ ”‪ „reference sources‬ﻟﻜﻦ اﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﻗﺪ ﻳﻌﺘﻘﺪ أن اﻟﻤﻘﺼﻮد ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫هﺬا اﻟﺠﺰء ”‪ .„cross-references‬وﻣﻦ ﺛﻢ وﺟﺐ اﻟﺘﻤﻴﻴﺰ‪.‬‬ ‫وﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪة رﻗﻢ ‪ ،5.4.1.1‬ﺑﺸﺄن ﺻﻴﺎﻏﺔ أﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺎت‪ ،‬اﻟﻐﺎﻟﺒﻴﺔ واﻓﻘﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻹﺑﻘﺎء ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻟﻐﻮﻳﺎ آﻤﺎ هﻲ ﻣﻊ ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻞ‬ ‫اﻟﺨﻄﺄ اﻟﻤﻄﺒﻌﻲ ﻓﻲ آﻠﻤﺔ ”‪ „from‬إﻟﻰ اﻟﺸﻜﻞ اﻟﺼﺤﻴﺢ ”‪ .„form‬آﻤﺎ أﺷﺎر اﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﻮن إﻟﻰ أن ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﺪول اﻟﻤﻤﺜﻠﺔ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻟﺪﻳﻪ ﻣﻤﺎرﺳﺎت ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻋﻦ اﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ‪ .‬وهﻮ اﻷﻣﺮ اﻟﺬي ﻗﺪ ﻳﺤﺘﺎج ﺟﻬﺪ ووﻗﺖ آﺒﻴﺮﻳﻦ ﻟﻠﺘﻮاﻓﻖ ﻣﻊ اﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ‪ .‬ﺗﻘﺪم‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﻮن ﺑﻤﻼﺣﻈﺎﺗﻬﻢ ﺣﻮل اﻟﻤﺴﺮد ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت اﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﺠﺐ إﺿﺎﻓﺘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ”‪ „user of the catalog‬آﻤﺎ أن‬ ‫هﻨﺎك ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت اﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﺠﺐ ﺣﺬﻓﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ”‪.„agent‬‬ ‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﻟﺜﺎﻟﺜﺔ‪ :‬اﻟﺘﺴﻠﺴﻞ )وﻟﻴﺪ ﻏﺎﻟﻲ ﻧﺼﺮ‪ ،‬رﺋﻴﺴﺎ ؛ وﺳﺎم ﺳﻤﻴﺮ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻣﻘﺮرا(‬ ‫واﻓﻘﺖ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻤﺒﺎدئ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺮاﻋﺔ اﻟﻤﺮوﻧﺔ واﻟﺘﺒﺴﻴﻂ ﻓﻲ ﻧﻄﺎق اﻟﺪورﻳﺎت‪ .‬ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺮد ﻓﻘﺪ ارﺗﺄى‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﻮن أن ﺗﺘﻢ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺗﻨﻘﻴﺢ ﻟﻠﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت اﻟﻤﺘﺮﺟﻤﺔ إﻟﻰ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪ .‬آﻤﺎ ﻃﺎﻟﺒﻮا ﻓﻲ اﻗﺘﺮاﺣﺎﺗﻬﻢ ﺑﻤﺰﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺮوﻧﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺆدي‬ ‫ﺑﺪورهﺎ ﻟﺰﻳﺎدة أﻋﺪاد اﻟﺪورﻳﺎت‪ ،‬وآﺬﻟﻚ أن ﻳﻌﻤﻞ اﻟﻨﺎﺷﺮون ﻣﻊ اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺎت –ﺑﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻮﻃﻦ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻲ‪ -‬ﻟﻼﺗﻔﺎق ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﻣﻮﺣﺪة ﻹﺧﺮاج اﻟﺪورﻳﺎت ﺣﺘﻰ ﺗﺴﻬﻞ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ‪ ،‬واﻟﺘﻮﺳﻊ ﻓﻲ إﺳﺘﺨﺪام آﻼ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺘﺮﻗﻴﻢ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﻠﺴﻼت وآﺬا اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ‬ ‫أﺛﻨﺎء اﻟﻨﺸﺮ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﻟﺮاﺑﻌﺔ‪ :‬اﻟﻌﻨﺎوﻳﻦ اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻨﺔ‪/‬اﻟﺘﺄﺷﻴﺮة اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﺎء )ﻧﻀﺎل ﻓﺎﻳﺰ اﻟﺸﻮرﺑﺠﻲ‪ ،‬رﺋﻴﺴﺎ ؛ ﻣﺤﻤﻮد رﺷﺎد‪ ،‬ﻣﻘﺮرا(‬ ‫ﺑﺨﺼﻮص اﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪة رﻗﻢ ‪ ،5.5.1.1‬اﻟﻌﻨﺎوﻳﻦ اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻨﺔ‪ ،‬اﻗﺘﺮح اﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﻮن ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻹﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎء اﻟﺨﺎص ﺑﻬﺎ ﻟﻴﻜﻮن آﺎﻵﺗﻲ „ ﻳﺠﺐ أن‬ ‫ﻳﻜﻮن اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻦ هﻮ اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻷﺻﻠﻲ أو اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻷآﺜﺮ ورودا ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻤﻈﻬﺮ اﻟﻤﺎدي ﻟﻠﻮﻋﺎء‪ ،‬أو ﻋﻨﻮان اﻟﻨﺴﺨﺔ اﻷوﻟﻰ ﻟﻨﻔﺲ‬ ‫اﻟﻮﻋﺎء إذا ﻇﻬﺮ ﺑﻌﻨﺎوﻳﻦ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻄﺒﻌﺎت اﻟﻼﺣﻘﺔ وﻟﻢ ﻳﻜﻦ أﺣﺪ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻌﻨﺎوﻳﻦ هﻮ اﻷآﺜﺮ ورودا ﻟﻨﻔﺲ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ“‪ .‬وآﺬﻟﻚ اﻗﺘﺮح‬ ‫اﻟﻔﺮﻳﻖ ﺑﺠﻌﻞ اﻟﺘﺄﺷﻴﺮة اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﺎء ﺑﻴﺎن إﺟﺒﺎري وﻟﻴﺲ اﺧﺘﻴﺎري آﻤﺎ هﻮ اﻵن‪.‬‬ ‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﻟﺨﺎﻣﺴﺔ‪ :‬ﺑﻨﻰ ﻣﺘﻌﺪد اﻷﺟﺰاء )ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ ﻋﺎﻣﺮ‪ ،‬رﺋﻴﺴﺎ ؛ ﺷﺮﻳﻒ ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﺮؤوف‪ ،‬ﻣﻘﺮرا(‬ ‫ﺑﺼﻔﺔ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ واﻓﻖ اﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﻮن ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﻮدة اﻟﻤﺒﺎدئ ﻣﻊ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻘﺎﺗﻬﻢ ﺣﻮل اﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪة رﻗﻢ ‪ 7.1.3‬ﺣﻴﺚ اﻗﺘﺮح اﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﻮن ﻋﺪم اﻟﺘﻘﻴﺪ‬ ‫ﺑﻌﺪد ﻣﺤﺪد ﻣﻦ أﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻴﻦ ﺑﺨﻼف اﻹﺳﻢ اﻷول‪ .‬ﺑﺨﺼﻮص اﻟﻤﺴﺮد‪ ،‬هﻨﺎك اﻗﺘﺮاح ﺑﺸﺄن إﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﻤﺮادﻓﺎت اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻟﺒﻌﺾ اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت اﻷﺟﻨﺒﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺨﺼﺺ‪ ،‬آﻤﺎ اﻟﺘﺒﺲ اﻷﻣﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ أﻋﻀﺎء ورﺷﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺑﺨﺼﻮص ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ آﻠﻤﺔ‬ ‫)اﻟﻤﻈﻬﺮ ‪ (Manifestation‬وﻟﻢ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ اﻟﺘﻮﺻﻞ إﻟﻲ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ دﻗﻴﻖ ﻟﻠﻤﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﻟﺬا ﺗﻮﺻﻲ اﻟﻮرﺷﺔ ﺑﺈﻟﻘﺎء ﻣﺰﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺘﻮﺿﻴﺢ‬ ‫واﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﻟﻬﺬا اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ أوﻻ ﺛﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ إﻟﻰ ﺗﻮﺻﻴﺔ أﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻃﺮﺣﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ أﻋﻀﺎء‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺑﺨﺼﻮص ﺑﻨﻰ ﻣﺘﻌﺪد اﻷﺟﺰاء ﺣﻮل ﻋﻤﻞ ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ ﺑﻴﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ﻣﻨﻔﺮدة ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﺠﻠﺪ داﺧﻞ اﻟﻮﻋﺎء ﻣﺘﻌﺪد اﻷﺟﺰاء أو‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺠﻠﺪات ﺑﺨﻼف ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻟﺠﺎﻣﻊ‪ .‬آﻤﺎ اﻗﺘﺮﺣﻮا أﻳﻀﺎ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻣﻊ اﻹﺗﺤﺎد اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ ﻟﺠﻤﻌﻴﺎت اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺎت )اﻹﻓﻼ( وآﺬﻟﻚ ﻣﻊ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺆﺳﺴﺎت اﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﻌﻨﻴﺔ ﻟﺘﺤﻔﻴﺰ اﻟﻨﺎﺷﺮﻳﻦ اﻟﻌﺮب ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺘﻌﺎون ﻣﻊ اﻟﺠﻬﺎت اﻟﻤﺴﺌﻮﻟﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺠﺘﻤﻊ اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺎت واﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت داﺧﻞ‬ ‫آﻞ دوﻟﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺎﻋﺪة ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ اﻟﻀﺒﻂ اﻟﺒﻴﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻲ‪ .‬ﻋﻼوة ﻋﻠﻰ ذﻟﻚ اﻗﺘﺮﺣﻮا اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻣﻊ ﻣﻮردي اﻟﻨﻈﻢ اﻵﻟﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺎت ﻋﻠﻰ اﻹﻟﺘﺰام ﺑﺘﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﻣﺎ اﺗﻔﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺒﺎديء وﻗﻮاﻋﺪ وﺗﻀﻤﻴﻦ ذﻟﻚ ﺿﻤﻦ اﻹﺻﺪارات اﻟﺤﺪﻳﺜﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻠﻚ اﻟﻨﻈﻢ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺑﺼﻔﺔ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ آﺎﻧﺖ هﻨﺎك ﻣﻮاﻓﻘﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﻮدة ﺳﻴﺘﻤﺒﺮ ‪ 2005‬ﻣﻊ ﺑﻌﺾ اﻻﻗﺘﺮاﺣﺎت واﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼت‪ .‬ﻟﻜﻢ آﺎن ﻣﻦ دواﻋﻲ اﻟﺴﺮور أن‬ ‫ﻧﺸﻬﺪ ﺗﻠﻚ اﻟﻠﺤﻈﺔ ﻧﺤﻮ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺒﻞ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻨﻄﻘﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ إﻟﻰ ﺗﻘﺪﻳﻢ اﻟﺪﻋﻢ اﻟﺸﺎﻣﻞ ﻟﻤﺴﻮدة اﻟﻤﺒﺎدئ‪.‬‬ ‫إن اﻟﻤﻘﺘﺮﺣﺎت اﻟﻤﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ اﺟﺘﻤﺎع اﻟﻘﺎهﺮة وآﺬﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺸﺎرك ﻣﻌﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺒﺮﻳﺪ اﻻﻟﻜﺘﺮوﻧﻲ‬ ‫ﻣﻤﻦ ﻟﻢ ﻳﺘﺢ ﻟﻪ اﻟﺤﻀﻮر ﻣﻦ أﺟﻞ اﻟﺘﻴﻘﻦ ﻣﻦ أن اﻟﺠﻤﻴﻊ ﻗﺪ أﺑﺪى ﻣﻮاﻓﻘﺘﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﻮدة اﻟﻤﺒﺎدئ‪ ،‬وﻣﻦ ﺛﻢ ارﺳﺎﻟﻬﺎ إﻟﻰ اﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﻓﻲ اﻹﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻦ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﻴﻦ ﻟﻠﻨﺼﻮﻳﺖ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺎرس ‪ .2006‬وﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮع إﺿﺎﻓﺔ اﻟﺘﺄﺷﻴﺮة اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﺎء ﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ اﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮة‬ ‫اﻟﻼزﻣﺔ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻗﻴﺪ اﻟﻤﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ وﻟﻜﻦ أﺿﻴﻒ إﻟﻰ اﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ آﻮﻧﻪ ﻗﺪ ﻧﺎل اﻟﺪﻋﻢ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻐﺎﻟﺒﻴﺔ اﻟﻌﻈﻤﻰ ﻣﻤﻦ ﻗﺎﻣﻮا ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺼﻮﻳﺖ‪.‬‬ ‫إن ﻣﺴﻮدة إﻋﻼن اﻟﻤﺒﺎدئ اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﻗﺪ وﺿﻌﺖ ﻟﻺﻃﻼع ﻋﻠﻲ اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ اﻻﻟﻜﺘﺮوﻧﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻻﻧﺘﺮﻧﺖ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻦ اﻷول‬ ‫واﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ﻹﻓﻼ ﻟﻠﺨﺒﺮاء ﻓﻲ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬آﻤﺎ ﻧﺸﺮت ﻓﻲ هﺬا اﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﻣﻦ أﺟﻞ اﻟﻤﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ واﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ‪ .‬وﺳﺘﻮاﺻﻞ اﻟﺠﻬﻮد ﻣﻦ أﺟﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﺸﺎرآﺔ اﻷﻗﺴﺎم اﻟﻤﻌﻨﻴﺔ ﺑﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ اﻹﻓﻼ وآﺬﻟﻚ أﻋﻀﺎﺋﻬﺎ ﻋﻼوة ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺠﻬﺎت اﻟﻤﻬﻨﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﺨﺼﺼﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ أﻧﺤﺎء‬ ‫اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ‪ .‬ﺣﺎﻟﻴﺎ ﺗﺘﻢ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ إﻋﻼن اﻟﻤﺒﺎدئ ﻓﻲ ﺻﻮرﺗﻪ اﻷﺧﻴﺮة واﺗﺎﺣﺘﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ اﻻﻟﻜﺘﺮوﻧﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻻﻧﺘﺮﻧﺖ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺎت‬ ‫اﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪:‬‬

‫‪19‬‬

‫اﻟﺒﻠﻐﺎرﻳﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﻜﺮواﺗﻴﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﺘﺸﻴﻜﻴﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﻔﻨﻠﻨﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬اﻷﻟﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﺠﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬اﻹﻳﻄﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﻴﺎﺑﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﻜﻮرﻳﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﻠﻴﺘﻮاﻧﻴﺔ‪،‬‬ ‫اﻟﺒﺮﺗﻐﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﺮوﻣﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﺮوﺳﻴﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﺴﻠﻮﻓﺎآﻴﺔ‪ ،‬اﻹﺳﺒﺎﻧﻴﺔ )اﺳﺒﺎﻧﻴﺎ(‪ ،‬واﻹﺳﺒﺎﻧﻴﺔ )أﻣﺮﻳﻜﺎ اﻟﻼﺗﻴﻨﻴﺔ(‪ .‬وﺳﻨﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺸﺠﻴﻊ اﻟﺘﺮﺟﻤﺎت‬ ‫إﻟﻰ ﻟﻐﺎت أﺧﺮى وﻣﻦ ﺛﻢ إﺿﺎﻓﺘﻬﺎ إﻟﻰ اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ اﻻﻟﻜﺘﺮوﻧﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻻﻧﺘﺮﻧﺖ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺳﻮف ﻳﻨﺸﺮ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﻣﺨﺘﺼﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻧﺸﺮة اﻹﻓﻼ ‪.(International Cataloguing and Bibliographic Control) ICBC‬‬ ‫وﺳﻨﻮاﺻﻞ ﺗﺸﺠﻴﻌﻨﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﺸﺎرآﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﺸﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻻت وﻋﺮوض ﺑﺤﺜﻴﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺴﻮدة اﻹﻋﻼن واﻟﻤﻘﺘﺮﺣﺎت‪ .‬اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع اﻟﻘﺪم ﺳﻴﻌﻘﺪ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫أﻏﺴﻄﺲ ‪ 2006‬ﺑﺴﻮل ﻓﻲ ﺿﻴﺎﻓﺔ اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺔ اﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ اﻟﻜﻮرﻳﺔ‪ ،‬واﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع اﻷﺧﻴﺮ اﻟﺨﺎص ﺑﺨﺒﺮاء وﺳﻂ وﺟﻨﻮب أﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺎ ﺳﻴﻌﻘﺪ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫‪ 2007‬وﺗﺴﺘﻀﻴﻔﻪ اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺔ اﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ ﺑﺠﻨﻮب أﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺎ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻣﺆﺗﻤﺮ اﻹﻓﻼ ﺑﺪورﺑﺎن‪.‬‬ ‫إﻧﻪ ﻟﺠﻬﺪ راﺋﻊ ﻳﻬﺪف إﻟﻰ ﺗﻘﺪﻳﻢ اﻹرﺷﺎد ﻣﻦ أﺟﻞ ﺗﺒﺴﻴﻂ اﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺎت اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﻴﺔ وﺗﺤﺴﻴﻦ ﺧﺒﺮة اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪ ﻓﻲ إﻳﺠﺎد اﺣﺘﻴﺎﺟﺎﺗﻪ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت‪ .‬آﻤﺎ ﻧﺄﻣﻞ أﻳﻀﺎ أن ﺗﻜﻮن ﺗﻠﻚ اﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ ﻣﻔﻴﺪة ﻟﻠﻤﺠﺘﻤﻌﺎت اﻷﺧﺮى اﻟﻤﻌﻨﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺠﺎل‪.‬‬ ‫آﻤﺎ ﻧﻮهﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻓﻲ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع اﻷول أﻧﻬﺎ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻃﻮﻳﻠﺔ اﻷﺟﻞ وهﻨﺎك اﻟﻜﺜﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻟﻢ ﻳﻨﺘﻪ ﺑﻌﺪ‪ ،‬ﻟﺬا ﻧﺤﻦ ﻧﻮد أن ﺗﻜﻮن ﺗﻠﻚ‬ ‫اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﺎت اﻟﺨﻤﺲ وﻧﺘﺎﺟﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ اﻻﺗﻔﺎق اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ ﻹﺻﺪار اﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ أن ﻳﺆدي إﻟﻰ ﻣﺰﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻘﺪرة ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺘﺸﺎرك‬ ‫ﻓﻲ ﻣﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ وآﺬا اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ واﻹﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ ﺣﻮل اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ‪.‬‬ ‫د‪ .‬ﺑﺎرﺑﺮا ﺗﻴﻠﻴﺖ‬

‫‪20‬‬

Statement of International Cataloguing Principles Final Draft Based on Responses through April 3, 2006 from the IME ICC3 Changes as Approved by the IME ICC1, IME ICC2, and IME ICC3 Participants Introduction The Statement of Principles – commonly known as the „Paris Principles” – was approved by the International Conference on Cataloguing Principles in 19611. Its goal of serving as a basis for international standardization in cataloguing has certainly been achieved: most of the cataloguing codes that were developed worldwide since that time followed the Principles strictly, or at least to a high degree. Over forty years later, having a common set of international cataloguing principles has become even more desirable as cataloguers and their clients use OPACs (Online Public Access Catalogues) around the world. Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, an effort has been made by IFLA to adapt the Paris Principles to objectives that are applicable to online library catalogues and beyond. The first of these objectives is to serve the convenience of the users of the catalogue. These new principles replace and broaden the Paris Principles from just textual works to all types of materials and from just the choice and form of entry to all aspects of the bibliographic and authority records used in library catalogues. The following draft principles cover: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Scope Entities, Attributes, and Relationships Functions of the Catalogue Bibliographic Description Access Points Authority Records Foundations for Search Capabilities

These new principles build on the great cataloguing traditions of the world,2 and also on the conceptual models of the IFLA documents Functional Requirements of Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records (FRANAR), which extend the Paris Principles to the realm of subject cataloguing.

1

International Conference on Cataloguing Principles (Paris : 1961). Report. – London : International Federation of Library Associations, 1963, p. 91–96. Also available in: Library Resources and Technical Services, v.6 (1962), p. 162–167; and Statement of principles adopted at the International Conference on Cataloguing Principles, Paris, October, 196. – Annotated edition / with commentary and examples by Eva Verona . – London : IFLA Committee on Cataloguing, 1971 2 Cutter, Charles A.: Rules for a dictionary catalog. 4th ed., rewritten. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing office. 1904, Ranganathan, S.R.: Heading and canons. Madras [India]: S. Viswanathan, 1955, and Lubetzky, Seymour. Principles of Cataloging. Final Report. Phase I: Descriptive Cataloging. Los Angeles, Calif.: University of California, Institute of Library Research, 1969.

21

It is hoped these principles will increase the international sharing of bibliographic and authority data and guide cataloguing rule makers in their efforts to develop an international cataloguing code.

STATEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL CATALOGUING PRINCIPLES Marked-up Proposed Draft of January 2005 1. Scope The principles stated here are intended to guide the development of cataloguing codes. They apply to bibliographic and authority records and current library catalogues. The principles also can be applied to bibliographies and data files created by libraries, archives, museums, and other communities. They aim to provide a consistent approach to descriptive and subject cataloguing of bibliographic resources of all kinds. The highest principle for the construction of cataloguing codes should be the convenience of the users of the catalogue. 2. Entities, Attributes, and Relationships 2.1. Entities in Bibliographic Records For the creation of bibliographic records the following entities, covering products of intellectual or artistic endeavour, are to be considered: Work Expression Manifestation Item. 3 2.1.1.

Bibliographic records should typically reflect manifestations. These manifestations may embody a collection of works, an individual work, or a component part of a work. Manifestations may appear in one or more physical units. In general, a separate bibliographic record should be created for each physical format (manifestation).

2.2. Entities in Authority Records Authority records should document controlled forms of names at least for persons, families, corporate bodies4, and subjects. Entities that serve as the subjects of works include: Work Expression Manifestation Item Person Family Corporate Body Concept 3 4

22

Work, expression, manifestation, and item are the Group 1 entities described in the FRBR/FRANAR model. Persons, families, and corporate bodies are the Group 2 entities described in the FRBR/FRANAR model.

Object Event Place.5 2.3. Attributes The attributes that identify each entity should be used as data elements in bibliographic and authority records. 2.4. Relationships Bibliographically significant relationships among the entities should be identified through the catalogue. 3. Functions of the Catalogue The functions of the catalogue are to enable a user6: 3.1. to find bibliographic resources in a collection (real or virtual) as the result of a search using attributes or relationships of the resources: 3.1.1.

to locate a single resource

3.1.2.

to locate sets of resources representing all resources belonging to the same work all resources belonging to the same expression all resources belonging to the same manifestation all works and expressions of a given person, family, or corporate body all resources on a given subject all resources defined by other criteria (such as language, country of publication, publication date, physical format, etc.) usually as a secondary limiting of a search result.7 It is recognized that, due to economic restraints and cataloguing practices, some library catalogues will lack bibliographic records for components of works or individual works within works.

3.2. to identify a bibliographic resource or agent (that is, to confirm that the entity described in a record corresponds to the entity sought or to distinguish between two or more entities with similar characteristics); 3.3. to select a bibliographic resource that is appropriate to the user’s needs (that is, to choose a resource that meets the user’s requirements with respect to content, physical format, etc. or to reject a resource as being inappropriate to the user’s needs); 3.4. to acquire or obtain access to an item described (that is, to provide information that will enable the user to acquire an item through purchase, loan, etc. or to access an item electronically through an online connection to a remote source); or to acquire or obtain an authority record or bibliographic record.

5 Concept, object, event, and place are the Group 3 entities described in the FRBR/FRANAR model . [Note: Additional entities may be identified in the future, such as FRANAR’s Trademarks, Identifiers, etc. (to update as needed when the FRANAR report is ‘final.’)] 6 3.1-3.5 are based on: Svenonius, Elaine. The Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000. ISBN 0-262-19433-3 7 It is recognized that, due to economic restraints and cataloguing practices, some library catalogues will lack bibliographic records for components of works or individual works within works.

23

3.5. to navigate a catalogue (that is, through the logical arrangement of bibliographic information and presentation of clear ways to move about, including presentation of relationships among works, expressions, manifestations, and items). 4. Bibliographic Description 4.1. The descriptive portion of the bibliographic record should be based on an internationally agreed standard.8 4.2. Descriptions may be at several levels of completeness, based on the purpose of the catalogue or bibliographic file. 5. Access Points 5.1. General Access points for retrieving bibliographic and authority records must be formulated following the general principles (see 1. Scope). They may be controlled or uncontrolled. Uncontrolled access points may include such things as the title proper as found on a manifestation or keywords added to or found anywhere in a bibliographic record. Controlled access points provide the consistency needed for locating sets of resources and must be normalized following a standard. These normalized forms (also called „authorized headings”) should be recorded in authority records along with variant forms used as references. 5.1.1.

Choice of access points 5.1.1.1. Include as access points to a bibliographic record the titles of works and expressions (controlled) and titles of manifestations (usually uncontrolled) and the controlled forms of names of the creators of works. In the case of corporate bodies as creators, access by corporate name is limited to works that are by their nature necessarily the expression of the collective thought or activity of the corporate body, even if signed by a person in the capacity of an officer or servant of the corporate body, or when the wording of the title, taken in conjunction with the nature of the work, clearly implies that the corporate body is collectively responsible for the content of the work. Additionally provide access points to bibliographic records for the controlled forms of names of other persons, families, corporate bodies, and subjects deemed to be important for finding, identifying, and selecting the bibliographic resource being described. 5.1.1.2. Include as access points to an authority record, the authorized form of name for the entity, as well as the variant forms of name. Additional access may be made through related names.

5.1.2.

8

24

Authorized Headings The authorized heading for an entity should be the name that identifies the entity in a consistent manner, either as predominantly found on manifestations or a well-accepted name suited to the users of the catalogue (e.g., ‘conventional name’).

For the library community that currently is the International Standard Bibliographic Descriptions.

Further identifying characteristics should be added, if necessary, to distinguish the entity from others of the same name. 5.1.2.1. If a person, family, or a corporate body uses variant names or variant forms of names, one name or one form of name should be chosen as the authorized heading for each distinct persona. 5.1.2.2. If there are variant titles for one work, one title should be chosen as the uniform title. 5.1.3.

Language When names have been expressed in several languages, preference should be given to a heading based on information found on manifestations of the expression in the original language and script; but if the original language and script is one not normally used in the catalogue, the heading may be based on forms found on manifestations or in references in one of the languages and scripts best suited to the users of the catalogue. Access should be provided in the original language and script whenever possible, through either the authorized heading or a reference. If transliterations are desirable, an international standard for script conversion should be followed.

5.2. Forms of Names for Persons 5.2.1.

When the name of a person consists of several words, the choice of entry word should be determined by conventions of the country and person’s country of citizenship, or

5.2.2.

when that country of citizenship is not determinable, by agreed usage in the country in which the person generally resides or

5.2.3.

if it is not possible to determine where the person generally resides, choice of entry word should follow agreed usage in the language most associated with that person generally uses, as found in manifestations or general reference sources.

5.3. Forms of Names for Families 5.3.1.

When the name of a family consists of several words, the choice of entry should be determinded by conventions of the country most associated with that family or

5.3.2.

if it is not possible to determine the country most associated with that family, choice of entry word should follow agreed usage in the conventions of the country and language most associated with that family generally uses, as found in manifestations or general reference sources.

5.4. Forms of Names for Corporate Bodies 5.4.1.

The corporate name should be given in direct order, as commonly found on manifestations.

5.4.2.

For jurisdictions, the authorized heading should include the currently used form of the name of the territory concerned in the language and script best suited to the needs of the users of the catalogue.

25

5.4.2.3. If the corporate body has used in successive periods different names that cannot be regarded as minor variations of one name, each significant name change should be considered a new entity and the corresponding authority records for each entity should be linked by see-also (earlier/later) references. 5.5. Forms of Uniform Titles A uniform title may either be a title that can stand alone or it may be a name/title combination or a title qualified by the addition of identifying elements, such as a corporate name, a place, language, date, etc. 5.5.1.

The uniform title should be the original title or the title most frequently found in manifestations of the work. Under certain defined circumstances, a commonly used title in the language and script of the catalogue may be preferred to the original title as the basis for the authorized heading. Always add language and date.

6. Authority Records 6.1. Authority records should be constructed to control the authorized forms of names and references used as access points for such entities as persons, families, corporate bodies, works, expressions, manifestations, items, concepts, objects, events, and places. 7. Foundations for Search Capabilities 7.1. Search and Retrieval Access points are the elements of bibliographic records that 1) provide reliable retrieval of bibliographic and authority records and their associated bibliographic resources and 2) limit search results. 7.1.1.

Searching devices Names, titles, and subjects should be searchable and retrievable by means of any device available in the given library catalogue or bibliographic file, for example by full forms of names, by key words, by phrases, by truncation, etc.

7.1.2.

Indispensable access points are those based on the main attributes and relationships of each entity in the bibliographic or authority record. 7.1.2.1. Indispensable access points for bibliographic records include: the name of the creator or first named creator when more than one is named the title proper or supplied title for the manifestation the year (s) of publication or issuance the uniform title for the work/expression subject headings, subject terms classification numbers standard numbers, identifiers, and ‘key titles’ for the described entity. 7.1.2.2. Indispensable access points for authority the authorized name or title of the entity variant forms of name or title for the entity.

7.1.3.

records

include:

Additional access points Attributes from other areas of the bibliographic description or the authority record may serve as optional access points or as filtering or limiting devices when

26

large numbers of records are retrieved. Such attributes in bibliographic records include, but are not limited to: names of additional creators beyond the first names of performers or persons, families, or corporate bodies in other roles than creator parallel titles, caption titles, etc. uniform title of the series bibliographic record identifiers language country of publication physical medium. Such attributes in authority records include, but are not limited to: names or titles of related entities authority record identifiers.

27

APPENDIX Objectives for the Construction of Cataloguing Codes There are several objectives that direct the construction of cataloguing codes.9 The highest is the convenience of the user. * Convenience of the user of the catalogue. Decisions taken in the making of descriptions and controlled forms of names for access should be made with the user in mind. * Common usage. Normalized vocabulary used in descriptions and access should be in accord with that of the majority of users. * Representation. Entities in descriptions and controlled forms of names for access should be based on the way an entity describes itself. * Accuracy. The entity described should be faithfully portrayed. * Sufficiency and necessity. Only those elements in descriptions and controlled forms of names for access that are required to fulfill user tasks and are essential to uniquely identify an entity should be included. * Significance. Elements should be bibliographically significant. * Economy. When alternative ways exist to achieve a goal, preference should be given to the way that best furthers overall economy (i.e., the least cost or the simplest approach). * Standardization. Descriptions and construction of access points should be standardized to the extent and level possible. This enables greater consistency, which in turn increases the ability to share bibliographic and authority records. * Integration. The descriptions for all types of materials and controlled forms of names of entities should be based on a common set of rules, to the extent possible. The rules in a cataloguing code should be * Defensible and not arbitrary. It is recognized that at times these objectives may contradict each other and a defensible, practical solution will be taken. [With regard to subject thesauri, there are other objectives that apply but are not yet included in this statement.]

9 Based on bibliographic literature, especially that of Ranganathan and Leibniz as described in Svenonius, E. The Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2000, p. 68.

28

STATEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL CATALOGUING PRINCIPLES Clean-copy Draft of April 2006

1. Scope The principles stated here are intended to guide the development of cataloguing codes. They apply to bibliographic and authority records and current library catalogues. The principles also can be applied to bibliographies and data files created by libraries, archives, museums, and other communities. They aim to provide a consistent approach to descriptive and subject cataloguing of bibliographic resources of all kinds. The highest principle for the construction of cataloguing codes should be the convenience of the users of the catalogue. 2. Entities, Attributes, and Relationships 2.1. Entities in Bibliographic Records For the creation of bibliographic records the following entities, covering products of intellectual or artistic endeavour, are to be considered: Work Expression Manifestation Item. 10 2.1.1.

Bibliographic records should typically reflect manifestations. These manifestations may embody a collection of works, an individual work, or a component part of a work. Manifestations may appear in one or more physical units.

In general, a separate bibliographic record should be created for each physical format (manifestation). 2.2. Entities in Authority Records Authority records should document controlled forms of names at least for persons, families, corporate bodies11, and subjects. Entities that serve as the subjects of works include: Work Expression Manifestation Item Person Family Corporate Body Concept 10 11

Work, expression, manifestation, and item are the Group 1 entities described in the FRBR/FRANAR model. Persons, families, and corporate bodies are the Group 2 entities described in the FRBR/FRANAR model.

29

Object Event Place.12 2.3. Attributes The attributes that identify each entity should be used as data elements in bibliographic and authority records. 2.4. Relationships Bibliographically significant relationships among the entities should be identified through the catalogue. 3. Functions of the Catalogue The functions of the catalogue are to enable a user13: 3.1. to find bibliographic resources in a collection (real or virtual) as the result of a search using attributes or relationships of the resources: 3.1.1. to locate a single resource 3.1.2. to locate sets of resources representing all resources belonging to the same work all resources belonging to the same expression all resources belonging to the same manifestation all works and expressions of a given person, family, or corporate body all resources on a given subject all resources defined by other criteria (such as language, country of publication, publication date, physical format, etc.) usually as a secondary limiting of a search result.14 3.2. to identify a bibliographic resource or agent (that is, to confirm that the entity described in a record corresponds to the entity sought or to distinguish between two or more entities with similar characteristics); 3.3. to select a bibliographic resource that is appropriate to the user’s needs (that is, to choose a resource that meets the user’s requirements with respect to content, physical format, etc. or to reject a resource as being inappropriate to the user’s needs); 3.4. to acquire or obtain access to an item described (that is, to provide information that will enable the user to acquire an item through purchase, loan, etc. or to access an item electronically through an online connection to a remote source); or to acquire or obtain an authority record or bibliographic record. 3.5. to navigate a catalogue (that is, through the logical arrangement of bibliographic information and presentation of clear ways to move about, including presentation of relationships among works, expressions, manifestations, and items). 4. Bibliographic Description

12 Concept, object, event, and place are the Group 3 entities described in the FRBR/FRANAR model . [Note: Additional entities may be identified in the future, such as FRANAR’s Trademarks, Identifiers, etc. (to update as needed when the FRANAR report is ‘final.’)] 13 3.1-3.5 are based on: Svenonius, Elaine. The Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000. ISBN 0-262-19433-3 14 It is recognized that, due to economic restraints and cataloguing practices, some library catalogues will lack bibliographic records for components of works or individual works within works.

30

4.1. The descriptive portion of the bibliographic record should be based on an internationally agreed standard.15 4.2. Descriptions may be at several levels of completeness, based on the purpose of the catalogue or bibliographic file. 5. Access Points 5.1. General Access points for retrieving bibliographic and authority records must be formulated following the general principles (see 1. Scope). They may be controlled or uncontrolled. Uncontrolled access points may include such things as the title proper as found on a manifestation or keywords added to or found anywhere in a bibliographic record. Controlled access points provide the consistency needed for locating sets of resources and must be normalized following a standard. These normalized forms (also called „authorized headings”) should be recorded in authority records along with variant forms used as references. 5.1.1.

Choice of access points 5.1.1.1. Include as access points to a bibliographic record the titles of works and expressions (controlled) and titles of manifestations (usually uncontrolled) and the controlled forms of names of the creators of works. In the case of corporate bodies as creators, access by corporate name is limited to works that are by their nature necessarily the expression of the collective thought or activity of the corporate body, even if signed by a person in the capacity of an officer or servant of the corporate body, or when the wording of the title, taken in conjunction with the nature of the work, clearly implies that the corporate body is collectively responsible for the content of the work. Additionally provide access points to bibliographic records for the controlled forms of names of other persons, families, corporate bodies, and subjects deemed to be important for finding, identifying, and selecting the bibliographic resource being described. 5.1.1.2. Include as access points to an authority record, the authorized form of name for the entity, as well as the variant forms of name. Additional access may be made through related names.

5.1.2.

15

Authorized Headings The authorized heading for an entity should be the name that identifies the entity in a consistent manner, either as predominantly found on manifestations or a well-accepted name suited to the users of the catalogue (e.g., ‘conventional name’). Further identifying characteristics should be added, if necessary, to distinguish the entity from others of the same name.

For the library community that currently is the International Standard Bibliographic Descriptions.

31

5.1.2.1. If a person, family, or a corporate body uses variant names or variant forms of names, one name or one form of name should be chosen as the authorized heading for each distinct persona. 5.1.2.1.1. When variant forms of the name are found in manifestations and/or reference sources, and this variation is not based on different presentations of the same name (e.g., full and brief forms), preference should be given 5.1.2.1.1.1. to a commonly known (or conventional) name rather than the official name, where this is indicated; or 5.1.2.1.1.2. to the official name, where there is no indication of a commonly known or conventional name. 5.1.2.1.2. If the corporate body has used in successive periods different names that cannot be regarded as minor variations of one name, each significant name change should be considered a new entity and the corresponding authority records for each entity should be linked by see-also (earlier/later) references. 5.1.2.2. If there are variant titles for one work, one title should be chosen as uniform title. 5.1.2.3. The variant forms of names not selected as the authorized heading for an entity should be included in the authority record for that entity to be used as references or alternate display forms. 5.1.3.

Language When names have been expressed in several languages, preference should be given to a heading based on information found on manifestations of the expression in the original language and script; but if the original language and script is one not normally used in the catalogue, the heading may be based on forms found on manifestations or in reference sources in one of the languages and scripts best suited to the users of the catalogue. Access should be provided in the original language and script whenever possible, through either the authorized heading or a cross-reference. If transliterations are desirable, an international standard for script conversion should be followed.

5.2. Forms of Names for Persons 5.2.1.

When the name of a person consists of several words, the choice of entry word should follow conventions of the country and language most associated with that person, as found in manifestations or reference sources.

5.3. Forms of Names for Families 5.3.1.

When the name of a family consists of several words, the choice of entry word should follow conventions of the country and language most associated with that family, as found in manifestations or reference sources.

5.4. Forms of Names for Corporate Bodies 5.4.1.

32

The corporate name should be given in direct order, as found in manifestations or reference sources, except

5.4.1.1. when the corporate body is part of a jurisdiction or territorial authority, the authorized heading should begin with or include the currently used form of the name of the territory concerned in the language and script best suited to the needs of the users of the catalogue; 5.4.1.2. when the corporate name implies subordination, or subordinate function, or is insufficient to identify the subordinate body, the authorized heading should begin with the name of the superior body. 5.5. Forms of Uniform Titles A uniform title may either be a title that can stand alone or it may be a name/title combination or a title qualified by the addition of identifying elements, such as a corporate name, a place, language, date, etc. 5.5.1.

The uniform title should be the original title or the title most frequently found in manifestations of the work except 5.5.1.1. when there is a commonly used title in the language and script of the catalogue, preference should be given it.

6. Authority Records Authority records should be constructed to control the authorized forms of names and references used as access points for such entities as persons, families, corporate bodies, works, expressions, manifestations, items, concepts, objects, events, and places. 7. Foundations for Search Capabilities 7.1. Search and Retrieval Access points are the elements of bibliographic records that 1) provide reliable retrieval of bibliographic and authority records and their associated bibliographic resources and 2) limit search results. 7.1.1.

Searching devices Names, titles, and subjects should be searchable and retrievable by means of any device available in the given library catalogue or bibliographic file, for example by full forms of names, by key words, by phrases, by truncation, etc.

7.1.2.

Indispensable access points are those based on the main attributes and relationships of each entity in the bibliographic or authority record. 7.1.2.1. Indispensable access points for bibliographic records include: the name of the creator or first named creator when more than one is named the title proper or supplied title for the manifestation the year (s) of publication or issuance the uniform title for the work/expression a general material designation subject headings, subject terms classification numbers standard numbers, identifiers, and ‘key titles’ for the described entity. 7.1.2.2. Indispensable access points for authority records include: the authorized name or title of the entity variant forms of name or title for the entity.

33

7.1.3.

34

Additional access points Attributes from other areas of the bibliographic description or the authority record may serve as optional access points or as filtering or limiting devices when large numbers of records are retrieved. Such attributes in bibliographic records include, but are not limited to: names of additional creators beyond the first names of performers or persons, families, or corporate bodies in other roles than creator parallel titles, caption titles, etc. uniform title of the series bibliographic record identifiers language country of publication physical medium. Such attributes in authority records include, but are not limited to: names or titles of related entities authority record identifiers.

APPENDIX Objectives for the Construction of Cataloguing Codes There are several objectives that direct the construction of cataloguing codes16. The highest is the convenience of the user. * Convenience of the user of the catalogue. Decisions taken in the making of descriptions and controlled forms of names for access should be made with the user in mind. * Common usage. Normalized vocabulary used in descriptions and access should be in accord with that of the majority of users. * Representation. Entities in descriptions and controlled forms of names for access should be based on the way an entity describes itself. * Accuracy. The entity described should be faithfully portrayed. * Sufficiency and necessity. Only those elements in descriptions and controlled forms of names for access that are required to fulfill user tasks and are essential to uniquely identify an entity should be included. * Significance. Elements should be bibliographically significant. * Economy. When alternative ways exist to achieve a goal, preference should be given to the way that best furthers overall economy (i.e., the least cost or the simplest approach). * Standardization. Descriptions and construction of access points should be standardized to the extent and level possible. This enables greater consistency, which in turn increases the ability to share bibliographic and authority records. * Integration. The descriptions for all types of materials and controlled forms of names of entities should be based on a common set of rules, to the extent possible. The rules in a cataloguing code should be * Defensible and not arbitrary. It is recognized that at times these objectives may contradict each other and a defensible, practical solution will be taken. [With regard to subject thesauri, there are other objectives that apply but are not yet included in this statement.]

16 Based on bibliographic literature, especially that of Ranganathan and Leibniz as described in Svenonius, E. The Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2000, p. 68.

35

‫إﻋﻼن ﻣﺒﺎدئ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺴﻮدة „اﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻴﺔ „ اﻟﻤﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻤﻘﺘﺮﺣﺎت ﺣﺘﻰ دﻳﺴﻤﺒﺮ‪ 2004‬واﻟﺘﻰ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ اﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼت اﻟﻤﻘﺘﺮﺣﺔ اﻟﻤﻀﺎﻓﺔ اﻟﻰ‬ ‫ﺑﻴﻮﻧﺲ اﻳﺮس‪ ،‬أﻏﺴﻄﺲ ‪ 2004‬واﻟﻘﺎهﺮة‪ ،‬دﻳﺴﻤﺒﺮ ‪) 2005‬ﻣﺴﻮدة ‪3‬اﺑﺮﻳﻞ ‪(2006‬‬ ‫ﺑﻴﺎن ﻣﺒﺎدئ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻤﻴﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺴﻮدة ﻣﺼﺪﻗﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ‬ ‫اﺟﺘﻤﺎع ‪ IFLA‬اﻻول ﻟﺨﺒﺮاء ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻤﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻓﺮاﻧﻜﻔﻮرت‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﺎﻧﻴﺎ‪2003 ،‬‬ ‫ﻣﻊ اﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼت اﻟﻤﺼﺪﻗﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ اﺟﺘﻤﺎع ‪ ، IME ICC2‬ﺑﻴﻮﻧﺲ اﻳﺮس‪ ،‬اﻻرﺟﻨﺘﻴﻦ ‪2004 ،‬‬ ‫واﺟﺘﻤﺎع ‪ ،IME ICC3‬اﻟﻘﺎهﺮة‪ ،‬ﻣﺼﺮ ‪2005‬‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻘﺪﻣﺔ‬ ‫ﺗﻤﺖ اﻟﻤﺼﺎدﻗﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻴﺎن اﻟﻤﺒﺎدئ – واﻟﻤﺘﻌﺎرف ﻋﻠﻴﻪ „ﺑﻤﺒﺎدئ ﺑﺎرﻳﺲ“ – ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ اﻟﻤﺆﺗﻤﺮ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻤﻲ ﻟﻤﺒﺎدئ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ ﺳﻨﺔ‬ ‫‪ .171961‬وﻗﺪ ﺗﺤﻘﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ اﻟﻬﺪف ﻣﻦ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﺒﺎدئ آﻘﺎﻋﺪة ﻟﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻤﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ أن ﻣﻌﻈﻢ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ‬ ‫واﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻢ ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮهﺎ ﻣﻨﺬ ذﻟﻚ اﻟﺤﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺷﺘﻰ أﻧﺤﺎء اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ‪ ،‬اﻟﺘﺰﻣﺖ ﺑﺪﻗﺔ‪ ،‬أو ﻋﻠﻰ اﻷﻗﻞ ﺑﺪرﺟﺔ ﻋﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺑﺘﻠﻚ اﻟﻤﺒﺎدئ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﻀﻲ أآﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ أرﺑﻌﻴﻦ ﻋﺎﻣﺎ‪ ،‬وﻣﻊ اﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻟﻤﻔﻬﺮﺳﻮن واﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﻮن ﺣﻮل اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ اﻟﻔﻬﺮس اﻵﻟﻲ‪ ،‬زادت اﻟﺮﻏﺒﺔ ﺑﻮﺟﻮد‬ ‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﺸﺘﺮآﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺒﺎدئ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻤﻴﺔ‪ .‬واﻵن‪ ،‬وﻣﻊ ﺑﺪاﻳﺔ اﻟﻘﺮن‪ ،21‬ﻗﺎﻣﺖ ‪ IFLA‬ﺑﺠﻬﻮد ﻟﺘﻄﻮﻳﻊ ﻣﺒﺎدئ ﺑﺎرﻳﺲ‬ ‫ﻷهﺪاف ﺗﻼﺋﻢ اﻟﻔﻬﺎرس اﻵﻟﻴﺔ وﻏﻴﺮهﺎ‪ .‬وأول هﺬﻩ اﻷهﺪاف‪ ،‬هﻲ اﻟﻘﻴﺎم ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﺪﻣﺔ راﺣﺔ ﻣﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﻲ اﻟﻔﻬﺮس‪.‬‬ ‫إن اﻟﻤﺒﺎدئ اﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪة اﺳﺘﺒﺪﻟﺖ ووﺳﻌﺖ ﻧﻄﺎق ﻣﺒﺎدئ ﺑﺎرﻳﺲ ﻣﻦ اﻷﻋﻤﺎل اﻟﻤﻜﺘﻮﺑﺔ إﻟﻰ أﻧﻮاع أﺧﺮى ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﻮاد‪ ،‬وﻣﻦ اﺧﺘﻴﺎر‬ ‫وﺷﻜﻞ اﻹدﺧﺎل اﻟﻮاﺣﺪ‪ ،‬إﻟﻰ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ ﻣﻈﺎهﺮ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ و اﻹﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻓﻬﺎرس اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺎت‪.‬‬ ‫ﺗﺤﺘﻮي ﻣﺴﻮدة اﻟﻤﺒﺎدئ اﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‪:‬‬ ‫‪ .1‬اﻟﻤﺪى‬ ‫‪ .2‬اﻟﻤﺠﺎﻻت واﻟﺤﻘﻮل واﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎت‬ ‫‪ .3‬وﻇﺎﺋﻒ اﻟﻔﻬﺮس‬ ‫‪ .4‬اﻟﻮﺻﻒ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻲ‬ ‫‪ .5‬ﻧﻘﺎط اﻟﻮﺻﻮل‬ ‫‪ .6‬اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻹﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ‬ ‫‪ .7‬أﺳﺲ إﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺎت اﻟﺒﺤﺚ‬

‫ﺑﻨﻴﺖ اﻟﻤﺒﺎدئ اﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪة ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻘﺎﻟﻴﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ‪ ،18‬وﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻨﻤﺎذج اﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻟﻮﺛﺎﺋﻖ ‪ IFLA‬اﻟﻤﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎت اﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ )‪ (FRBR‬و اﻟﻤﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎت اﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻹﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ )‪ (FRANAR‬واﻟﺘﻲ وﺳﻌﺖ ﻧﻄﺎق ﻣﺒﺎدئ‬ ‫ﺑﺎرﻳﺲ إﻟﻰ ﻋﺎﻟﻢ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔ‪ .‬واﻟﻤﺘﺄﻣﻞ أن هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﺒﺎدئ ﺳﺘﺰﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺒﺎدل اﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ واﻹﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ وﺗﺮﺷﺪ‬ ‫ﺻﺎﻧﻌﻲ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺟﻬﻮدهﻢ ﻟﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﻗﻮاﻧﻴﻦ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻤﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 17‬اﻟﻤﺆﺗﻤﺮ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ ﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ )ﺑﺎرﻳﺲ ‪ .(1961 :‬ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺮ‪ – .‬ﻟﻨﺪن ‪ :‬اﻹﺗﺤﺎد اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ ﻟﺠﻤﻌﻴﺎت اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺎت‪ ،1963 ،‬ص‪ .96-91 .‬أﻳﻀﺎ ﻣﺘﺎح ﻓﻲ‪:‬‬ ‫ﻣﺼﺎدر اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺎت واﻟﺨﺪﻣﺎت اﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺞ ‪ ،(1962) 6‬ص‪ 167-162 .‬؛ وإﻋﻼن اﻟﻤﺒﺎدئ اﻟﻤﺘﺒﻨﻰ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺆﺗﻤﺮ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ ﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎرﻳﺲ‪،‬‬ ‫أآﺘﻮﺑﺮ‪ – .1961 ،‬ﻃﺒﻌﺔ ﻣﻨﻘﺤﺔ ‪ /‬ﻣﻊ ﺷﺮح وأﻣﺜﻠﺔ ﻹﻳﻔﺎ ﻓﻴﺮوﻧﺎ‪ – .‬ﻟﻨﺪن ‪ :‬ﻟﺠﻨﺔ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ ﺑﻺﺗﺤﺎد اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ ﻟﺠﻤﻌﻴﺎت اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺎت‪.1971 ،‬‬ ‫‪ 18‬آﺘﺮ‪ ،‬ﺗﺸﺎرﻟﺰ أ‪ .‬ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮس اﻟﻘﺎﻣﻮﺳﻲ‪ .‬ط‪ ،4 .‬ﻣﻨﻘﺤﺔ‪ .‬واﺷﻨﻄﻦ ‪ :‬ﻣﻜﺘﺐ اﻟﻨﺸﺮ اﻟﺤﻜﻮﻣﻲ‪،1904 ،‬‬ ‫راﻧﺠﺎﻧﺎﺛﺎن‪ ،‬س‪.‬ر‪ .‬اﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ واﻟﻔﻬﺎرس‪ .‬ﻣﺪراس ]اﻟﻬﻨﺪ[ ‪ :‬س‪ .‬ﻓﻴﺰواﻧﺎﺛﺎن‪ ،1955 ،‬و ﻟﻮﺑﻴﺘﺰآﻲ‪ ،‬ﺳﻴﻤﻮر‪ .‬ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ‪ .‬اﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ اﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻲ‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﺮﺣﻠﺔ ‪:1‬‬ ‫اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻮﺻﻔﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻟﻮس أﻧﺠﻠﻮس‪ ،‬آﺎﻟﻴﻔﻮرﻧﻴﺎ ‪ :‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ آﺎﻟﻴﻔﻮرﻧﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﻬﺪ أﺑﺤﺎث اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺎت‪.1969 ،‬‬

‫‪36‬‬

‫ﺑﻴﺎن ﻣﺒﺎدئ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻤﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻣﺴﻮدة أﺑﺮﻳﻞ ‪2006‬‬ ‫‪ .1‬اﻟﻤﺪى‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻘﺼﻮد ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺒﺎدئ اﻟﻤﻨﺼﻮص ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ هﻨﺎ‪ ،‬هﻲ ﺗﻮﺟﻴﻪ ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ‪ .‬و ﺗﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‬ ‫واﻹﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ‪ ،‬واﻟﻔﻬﺎرس اﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻜﺘﺒﺎت‪ .‬وﺑﺎﻻﻣﻜﺎن ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﺒﺎدئ أﻳﻀﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺎت‪ ،‬وﻣﻠﻔﺎت اﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎت اﻟﺘﻲ‬ ‫ﺗﻨﺸﺌﻬﺎ اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺎت واﻷرﺷﻔﺔ واﻟﻤﺘﺎﺣﻒ وﺟﻤﻌﻴﺎت أﺧﺮى‪.‬‬ ‫واﻟﻬﺪف ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺗﻘﺪﻳﻢ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺛﺎﺑﺘﺔ ﻟﻠﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻮ ﺻﻔﻴﺔ واﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔ وذﻟﻚ ﻟﺠﻤﻴﻊ أﻧﻮاع اﻟﻤﺼﺎدر اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫وأهﻢ ﻣﺒﺎدئ ﺑﻨﺎء ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ‪ ،‬هﻲ ﺗﻠﺒﻴﺔ راﺣﺔ ﻣﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﻲ اﻟﻔﻬﺮس‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .2‬اﻟﻤﺠﺎﻻت‪ ،‬اﻟﺤﻘﻮل‪ ،‬واﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎت‬ ‫‪2.1‬‬

‫اﻟﻤﺠﺎﻻت ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻟﺒﻨﺎء ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻼت ﺑﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﺠﺐ اﻷﺧﺬ ﻓﻲ اﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎر اﻟﻤﺠﺎﻻت اﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬واﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺤﺘﻮي ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺤﺎوﻻت اﻹﻧﺘﺎج اﻟﻔﻜﺮي‬ ‫واﻟﻔﻨﻲ‪:‬‬ ‫اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‬ ‫اﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻈﻬﺮ‬ ‫اﻟﻮﻋﺎء‬

‫‪19‬‬

‫‪2.1.1‬‬

‫ﺗﻌﻜﺲ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺎدة اﻟﻤﻈﺎهﺮ‪ ،‬وﻗﺪ ﺗﺘﻘﻤﺺ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﻈﺎهﺮ ﻣﺠﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻷﻋﻤﺎل‪ ،‬أو‬ ‫ﻋﻤﻞ ﻣﻨﻔﺮد‪ ،‬أو ﺟﺰء ﻣﻦ ﻋﻤﻞ‪ .‬وﻗﺪ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ اﻟﻤﻈﺎهﺮ ﻓﻲ وﺣﺪة ﻣﺎدﻳﺔ واﺣﺪة أو أآﺜﺮ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻋﺎم‪ ،‬ﻳﺠﺐ إﻧﺸﺎء ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻠﻪ ﺑﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ﻣﻨﻔﺼﻠﺔ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻣﺎدي )ﻣﻈﻬﺮ(‪.‬‬

‫‪2.2‬‬

‫اﻟﻤﺠﺎﻻت ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﻳﺠﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻷﻗﻞ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﺛﻴﻖ اﻟﺼﻴﻎ اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻨﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻹﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ ﻷﺳﻤﺎء اﻷﺷﺨﺎص‪ ،‬واﻟﻌﺎﺋﻼت‪ ،‬واﻟﻬﻴﺌﺎت‪،20‬‬ ‫واﻟﻤﻮاﺿﻴﻊ‪ .‬وﺗﺤﺘﻮي اﻟﻤﺠﺎﻻت اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ آﻤﻮاﺿﻴﻊ ﻷﻋﻤﺎل ﻋﻠﻰ‪:‬‬ ‫اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‬ ‫اﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻈﻬﺮ‬ ‫اﻟﻮﻋﺎء‬ ‫اﻟﺸﺨﺺ‬

‫‪19‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬

‫‪37‬‬

‫اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‪ ،‬اﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﻈﻬﺮ‪ ،‬واﻟﻮﻋﺎء هﻲ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻷوﻟﻰ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻜﻴﺎﻧﺎت اﻟﻤﻮﺻﻮﻓﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل ﻧﻤﻮذج ‪.FRBR/FRANAR‬‬ ‫اﻷﺷﺨﺎص‪ ،‬اﻟﻌﺎﺋﻼت‪ ،‬اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺎت هﻲ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻜﻴﺎﻧﺎت اﻟﻤﻮﺻﻮﻓﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل ﻧﻤﻮذج ‪.FRBR/FRANAR‬‬

‫اﻟﻌﺎﺋﻠﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻔﻬﻮم‬ ‫اﻟﺠﺴﻢ‬ ‫اﻟﺤﺪث‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻜﺎن‬

‫‪21‬‬

‫‪2.3‬‬

‫اﻟﺤﻘﻮل‬ ‫ﻳﺠﺐ اﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻟﺤﻘﻮل اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺤﺪد آﻞ ﻣﺠﺎل‪ ،‬آﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ اﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎت ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ واﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪2.4‬‬

‫اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎت‬ ‫ﻣﻦ اﻟﻨﺎﺣﻴﺔ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﺠﺐ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎت اﻟﻬﺎﻣﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﻤﺠﺎﻻت ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل اﻟﻔﻬﺮس‪.‬‬

‫‪ .3‬وﻇﺎﺋﻒ اﻟﻔﻬﺮس‬ ‫وﻇﺎﺋﻒ اﻟﻔﻬﺮس هﻲ ﺗﻤﻜﻴﻦ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪم‪:22‬‬ ‫‪3.1‬‬

‫ﻣﻦ إﻳﺠﺎد اﻟﻤﺼﺎدر اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻘﺘﻨﻴﺎت )اﻟﻔﻌﻠﻴﺔ و اﻻﻓﺘﺮاﺿﻴﺔ( آﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺑﺤﺚ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻟﺤﻘﻮل أو ﻋﻼﻗﺎت‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺼﺎدر‪:‬‬ ‫‪3.1.1‬‬

‫ﻟﺘﻌﻴﻦ ﻣﺼﺪر ﻣﺤﺪد‬

‫‪3.1.2‬‬

‫ﻟﺘﻌﻴﻦ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺼﺎدر واﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻤﺜﻞ‬ ‫ﺟﻤﻴﻊ اﻟﻤﺼﺎدر اﻟﺘﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﻟﻨﻔﺲ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‬ ‫ﺟﻤﻴﻊ اﻟﻤﺼﺎدر اﻟﺘﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﻟﻨﻔﺲ اﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺟﻤﻴﻊ اﻟﻤﺼﺎدر اﻟﺘﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﻟﻨﻔﺲ اﻟﻤﻈﻬﺮ‬ ‫ﺟﻤﻴﻊ اﻷﻋﻤﺎل واﻟﺘﻌﺎﺑﻴﺮ ﻟﺸﺨﺺ‪ ،‬أو ﻋﺎﺋﻠﺔ‪ ،‬أو هﻴﺌﺔ‬ ‫ﺟﻤﻴﻊ اﻟﻤﺼﺎدر ﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮع ﻣﻌﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﺟﻤﻴﻊ اﻟﻤﺼﺎدراﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺑﺨﻮاص أﺧﺮى )ﻣﺜﻞ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻜﺎن اﻟﻨﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ اﻟﻨﺸﺮ‪ ،‬اﻟﺸﻜﻞ اﻟﻤﺎدي‪ ،‬اﻟﺦ( ﻋﺎدة‬ ‫آﻤﺤﺪد ﺛﺎﻧﻮي ﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ اﻟﺒﺤﺚ‪.23‬‬

‫‪3.2‬‬

‫ﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺼﺪر ﺑﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻲ أو ﻋﻤﻴﻞ )أي ﻟﻠﺘﺄآﺪ ﻣﻦ أن اﻟﻤﺠﺎل اﻟﻤﻮﺻﻮف ﻓﻲ اﻟﺴﺠﻞ ﻳﻤﺜﻞ اﻟﻤﺠﺎل اﻟﻤﻨﺸﻮد أو‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺘﻔﺮﻳﻖ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﺠﺎﻟﻴﻦ أو أآﺜﺮ ذوي ﺧﻮاص ﻣﺘﺸﺎﺑﻬﺔ(‬

‫‪3.3‬‬

‫ﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎر اﻟﻤﺼﺪر اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﻟﺘﻠﺒﻴﺔ اﺣﺘﻴﺎﺟﺎت اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪم )أي اﺧﺘﻴﺎر اﻟﻤﺼﺪر اﻟﺬي ﻳﻔﻲ ﺑﻤﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎت‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪم ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ اﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮى‪ ،‬اﻟﺸﻜﻞ اﻟﻤﺎدي‪ ،‬اﻟﺦ أو رﻓﺾ ﻣﺼﺪر ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻼﺋﻢ ﻻﺣﺘﻴﺎﺟﺎت اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪم(‬

‫‪3.4‬‬

‫ﻟﻠﺘﺰوﻳﺪ أو اﻟﻮﺻﻮل إﻟﻰ اﻟﻮﻋﺎء اﻟﻤﻮﺻﻮف )أي ﻟﺘﺰوﻳﺪ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻤﻜﻦ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪم ﻣﻦ ﺷﺮاء‪ ،‬أو اﺳﺘﻌﺎرة‪،‬‬ ‫اﻟﺦ‪ ،‬أو اﻟﻮﺻﻮل إﻟﻰ اﻟﻮﻋﺎء اﻟﻜﺘﺮوﻧﻴﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل ﺧﻂ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮ ﻟﻤﺼﺎدر ﺑﻌﻴﺪة(‬

‫‪ 21‬اﻟﻤﻔﻬﻮم‪ ،‬اﻟﺠﺴﻢ‪ ،‬اﻟﺤﺪث‪ ،‬واﻟﻤﻜﺎن هﻲ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﺜﺎﻟﺜﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻜﻴﺎﻧﺎت اﻟﻤﻮﺻﻮﻓﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل ﻧﻤﻮذج ‪.FRBR/FRANAR‬‬ ‫]ﻣﻠﺤﻮﻇﺔ‪ :‬إﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ إﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻔﺎت ﻟﻜﻴﺎﻧﺎت أﺧﺮى ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺒﻼ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ اﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎت اﻟﻤﺴﺠﻠﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﺎت‪ ... ،‬اﻟﺦ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل ‪.[FARNAR‬‬ ‫‪ 3.5-3.1 22‬اﻋﺘﻤﺎدا ﻋﻠﻰ‪ :‬ﺳﻔﻴﻨﻮﻧﻴﻮز‪ ،‬اﻟﻴﻨﺎ‪ .‬اﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪة اﻟﻔﻜﺮﻳﺔ ﻟﻤﺆﺳﺴﺎت اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت‪ .‬آﻤﺒﺮدج‪ : MA ،‬ﻣﻄﺒﻌﺔ ‪ .2000 ،MIT‬ردﻣﻚ‬ ‫‪0-262-19433-3‬‬ ‫‪ 23‬ﻧﻈﺮا ﻟﻠﻌﻮاﻣﻞ اﻹﻗﺘﺼﺎدﻳﺔ وﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺎت اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﺾ ﻓﻬﺎرس اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺎت ﺳﺘﻌﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻘﺺ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪38‬‬

‫‪3.5‬‬

‫ﻟﻠﻤﻨﺎورة ﻓﻲ اﻟﻔﻬﺮس )أي ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ اﻟﺘﺮﺗﻴﺐ اﻟﻤﻨﻄﻘﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ وﺗﻘﺪﻳﻢ واﺿﺢ ﻟﻠﺤﺮآﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻳﺎ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻘﺪﻳﻢ ﻟﻠﻌﻼﻗﺎت ﺑﻴﻦ اﻷﻋﻤﺎل‪ ،‬واﻟﺘﻌﺎﺑﻴﺮ‪ ،‬واﻟﻤﻈﺎهﺮ‪ ،‬واﻷوﻋﻴﺔ(‬

‫‪ .4‬اﻟﻮﺻﻒ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻲ‬ ‫‪4.1‬‬

‫ﻳﺠﺐ ﺑﻨﺎء اﻟﺠﺰء اﻟﻮﺻﻔﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ ﻣﺠﻤﻊ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻋﺎﻟﻤﻴﺎ‪.24‬‬

‫‪4.2‬‬

‫ﻗﺪ ﺗﻜﻮن اﻷوﺻﺎف ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺪة ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻳﺎت ﻣﻦ اﻟﻜﻤﺎل‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﺘﻤﺪة ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻐﺮض ﻣﻦ اﻟﻔﻬﺮس أو اﻟﻤﻠﻒ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻲ‪.‬‬

‫‪ .5‬ﻧﻘﺎط اﻟﻮﺻﻮل‬ ‫‪5.1‬‬

‫ﻋﺎم‬ ‫ﻳﺠﺐ ﺗﺸﻜﻴﻞ ﻧﻘﺎط اﻟﻮﺻﻮل ﻻﺳﺘﺮﺟﺎع اﻟﻤﻠﻔﺎت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ واﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ ﻟﺘﺘﺒﻊ اﻟﻤﺒﺎدئ اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ )أﻧﻈﺮ ‪ .1‬اﻟﻤﺪى(‪ .‬وﻗﺪ‬ ‫ﺗﻜﻮن ﻣﻘﻨﻨﺔ أو ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻘﻨﻨﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻗﺪ ﺗﺤﺘﻮي ﻧﻘﺎط اﻟﻮﺻﻮل اﻟﻐﻴﺮ ﻣﻘﻨﻨﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ أﺷﻴﺎء ﻣﺜﻞ اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻲ آﻤﺎ هﻮ ﻣﻮﺟﻮد ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻤﻈﻬﺮ أو اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎت‬ ‫اﻟﻬﺎﻣﺔ ﻣﻀﺎﻓﺔ أو ﻣﻮﺟﻮدة ﻓﻲ أي ﻣﻜﺎن ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺗﺰود ﻧﻘﺎط اﻟﻮﺻﻮل ﻣﻘﻨﻨﺔ اﻻﺳﺘﻘﺮار اﻟﻼزم ﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺼﺎدر واﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﺠﺐ ﺗﻘﻨﻴﻨﻬﺎ اﺗﺒﺎﻋﺎ ﻟﻠﻘﻮاﻋﺪ‪ .‬ﻳﺠﺐ‬ ‫ﺗﺪوﻳﻦ هﺬﻩ اﻷﺷﻜﺎل اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻨﺔ )وﻳﻄﻠﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ أﻳﻀﺎ „اﻟﻤﺪاﺧﻞ اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻨﺔ“( ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ إﻟﻰ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ اﻷﺷﻜﺎل‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ واﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪم آﺈﻳﺤﺎءات‪.‬‬ ‫‪5.1.1‬‬

‫اﺧﺘﻴﺎر ﻧﻘﺎط اﻟﻮﺻﻮل‬ ‫‪5.1.1.1‬‬

‫أﺿﻒ إﻟﻰ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ﻧﻘﺎط اﻟﻮﺻﻮل آﻌﻨﺎوﻳﻦ اﻷﻋﻤﺎل و اﻟﺘﻌﺎﺑﻴﺮ )ﻣﻘﻨﻨﺔ(‬ ‫وﻋﻨﺎوﻳﻦ اﻟﻤﻈﺎهﺮ )ﻋﺎدة ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻘﻨﻨﺔ( واﻷﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻨﺔ ﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻲ اﻷﻋﻤﺎل‪.‬‬ ‫ﻓﻲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ آﻮن اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺔ آﻤﺆﻟﻒ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﺘﺼﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮﺟﺎع ﺑﻮاﺳﻄﺔ اﺳﻢ اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻷﻋﻤﺎل اﻟﺘﻲ‬ ‫ﺗﺆآﺪ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻬﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺗﻌﺒﻴﺮ ﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ أﻓﻜﺎر أو أﻋﻤﺎل اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﺘﻰ وﻟﻮ ﺗﻢ ﺗﻮﻗﻴﻌﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﺳﻢ‬ ‫ﺷﺨﺺ ﻓﻲ رﺗﺒﺔ ﻣﻮﻇﻒ أو ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺔ‪ ،‬أو ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻜﻮن ﺻﻴﻐﺔ اﻟﻌﻨﻮان‪ ،‬ﻣﻘﺮوﻧﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﺣﻲ ﺑﻮﺿﻮح أن اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺔ ﻣﺴﺌﻮﻟﺔ ﺟﻤﺎﻋﻴﺎ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺤﺘﻮى اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‪.‬‬ ‫أﺿﻒ أﻳﻀﺎ ﻧﻘﺎط وﺻﻮل ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ﻟﻸﺷﻜﺎل اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻨﺔ ﻷﺳﻤﺎء أﺷﺨﺎص‬ ‫إﺿﺎﻓﻴﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﻋﺎﺋﻼت‪ ،‬هﻴﺌﺎت‪ ،‬ﻣﻮاﺿﻴﻊ ﻳﻌﺘﻘﺪ أﻧﻬﺎ ﻣﻬﻤﺔ ﻹﻳﺠﺎد‪ ،‬وﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ‪ ،‬واﺧﺘﻴﺎر اﻟﻤﺼﺪر‬ ‫اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻮﺻﻮف‪.‬‬

‫‪5.1.1.2‬‬ ‫‪5.1.2‬‬

‫أﺿﻒ آﻨﻘﺎط وﺻﻮل ﻟﻠﺴﺠﻞ اﻹﺳﺘﻨﺎدي‪ ،‬اﻟﺸﻜﻞ اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻦ ﻻﺳﻢ اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺔ‪ ،‬وأﻳﻀﺎ اﻷﺷﻜﺎل‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﻼﺳﻢ‪ ،‬وﻳﻤﻜﻦ إﻧﺸﺎء ﻧﻘﺎط إﺿﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل أﺳﻤﺎء ذات ﻋﻼﻗﺔ‪.‬‬

‫اﻟﻤﺪاﺧﻞ اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻨﺔ‬ ‫ﻳﺠﺐ أن ﻳﻜﻮن اﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻦ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﺎل‪ ،‬اﻻﺳﻢ اﻟﺬي ﻳﺤﺪد اﻟﻤﺠﺎل ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﻨﺘﻈﻢ‪ ،‬إﻣﺎ آﻤﺎ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻐﺎﻟﺐ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻤﻈﺎهﺮ‪ ،‬أو اﺳﻢ ﻣﻘﺒﻮل ﺟﺪا ﻣﻼﺋﻢ ﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﻲ اﻟﻔﻬﺮس )ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ اﻟﻤﺜﺎل „اﺳﻢ ﺗﻘﻠﻴﺪي“(‪ ،‬أﻳﻀﺎ‬ ‫ﻳﺠﺐ إﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﻣﻮاﺻﻔﺎت ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬إذا اﺳﺘﻠﺰم اﻷﻣﺮ‪ ،‬ﻟﻠﺘﻔﺮﻳﻖ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﺠﺎل وأﺧﺮ ﺑﺄﺳﻤﺎء ﻣﺘﺸﺎﺑﻬﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫‪5.1.2.1‬‬

‫إذا اﺳﺘﺨﺪم ﺷﺨﺺ‪ ،‬ﻋﺎﺋﻠﺔ‪ ،‬أو هﻴﺌﺔ أﺳﻤﺎء ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪ ،‬أو أﺷﻜﺎل ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻷﺳﻤﺎء‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻧﻪ‬ ‫ﻳﺘﻌﻴﻦ اﺧﺘﻴﺎر اﺳﻢ واﺣﺪ أو ﺷﻜﻞ واﺣﺪ ﻣﻦ اﻻﺳﻢ آﻤﺪﺧﻞ ﻣﻘﻨﻦ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺔ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ أﺷﻜﺎل ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻷﺳﻤﺎء ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻈﺎهﺮ و‪/‬أو اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻊ‪ ،‬وهﺬا‬ ‫‪5.1.2.1.1‬‬ ‫اﻻﺧﺘﻼف ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﺒﻨﻴﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ اﺧﺘﻼف ﻓﻲ ﺗﻘﺪﻳﻢ ﻧﻔﺲ اﻻﺳﻢ )ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ اﻟﻤﺜﺎل‪ ،‬اﻷﺷﻜﺎل اﻟﻜﺎﻣﻠﺔ‬ ‫واﻟﻤﺨﺘﺼﺮة(‪ ،‬ﻳﺠﺐ إﻋﻄﺎء اﻷﻓﻀﻠﻴﺔ‪:‬‬

‫‪24‬‬

‫‪39‬‬

‫ﻣﻦ أﺟﻞ ﻣﺠﺘﻤﻊ اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺎت اﻟﺤﺎﻟﻲ‪ ،‬وهﻮ اﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﻦ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ ﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻮﺻﻒ‪.‬‬

‫ﻟﻼﺳﻢ اﻷآﺜﺮ ﺷﻴﻮﻋﺎ )أو اﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪي( ﻋﻮﺿﺎ ﻋﻦ اﻻﺳﻢ‬ ‫‪5.1.2.1.1.1‬‬ ‫اﻟﺮﺳﻤﻲ‪ ،‬واﻟﻤﺸﺎر إﻟﻴﻪ؛ أو‬ ‫‪5.1.2.1.1.2‬‬

‫اﻻﺳﻢ اﻟﺮﺳﻤﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻋﺪم وﺟﻮد اﺳﻢ ﺷﺎﺋﻊ أو ﺗﻘﻠﻴﺪي‪.‬‬

‫إذا اﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﺖ اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻓﺘﺮات ﺳﺎﺑﻘﺔ أﺳﻤﺎء ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ واﻟﺘﻲ ﻻ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ‬ ‫‪5.1.2.1.2‬‬ ‫اﻋﺘﺒﺎرهﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ أﻧﻬﺎ اﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎت ﻃﻔﻴﻔﺔ ﻟﻨﻔﺲ اﻻﺳﻢ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﺘﻌﻴﻦ اﻋﺘﺒﺎر آﻞ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﺟﻮهﺮي ﻓﻲ اﻻﺳﻢ‬ ‫آﻤﺠﺎل ﺟﺪﻳﺪ‪ ،‬وﻳﺠﺐ رﺑﻂ اﻟﺴﺠﻼت اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺈﺣﺎﻻت أﻧﻈﺮ‪-‬أﻳﻀﺎ )ﻗﺒﻞ‪/‬ﺑﻌﺪ(‪.‬‬

‫‪5.1.3‬‬

‫‪5.1.2.2‬‬

‫إذا آﺎﻧﺖ أﺳﻤﺎء ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﻨﻔﺲ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﺠﺐ اﺧﺘﻴﺎر ﻋﻨﻮان واﺣﺪ آﻌﻨﻮان ﻣﻘﻨﻦ‪.‬‬

‫‪5.1.2.3‬‬

‫ﻳﺠﺐ إﺿﺎﻓﺔ اﻷﺷﻜﺎل اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﻸﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻐﻴﺮ ﻣﺨﺘﺎرة آﻤﺪﺧﻞ اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺔ اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻦ‪ ،‬إﻟﻰ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ‬ ‫اﻹﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻬﻴﺌﺔ ﻻﺳﺘﺨﺪاﻣﻬﺎ آﺈﺣﺎﻻت أو أﺷﻜﺎل ﻋﺮض ﺑﺪﻳﻠﺔ‪.‬‬

‫اﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ اﻷﺳﻤﺎء ﺑﻠﻐﺎت ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﺠﺐ إﻋﻄﺎء اﻷوﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ ﻣﺒﻨﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت اﻟﻤﻮﺟﻮدة ﻓﻲ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻈﺎهﺮ ﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ ﺑﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻨﺺ اﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ؛ وﻟﻜﻦ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻻ ﺗﻜﻮن اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻔﻬﺮس‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﻳﺒﻨﻰ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ أﺳﺎس اﻷﺷﻜﺎل اﻟﻤﻮﺟﻮدة ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺠﺴﻴﺪات أو اﻟﻤﺼﺎدر ﺑﺄﺣﺪ اﻟﻠﻐﺎت أو اﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺎت اﻷﻧﺴﺐ‬ ‫ﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﻲ اﻟﻔﻬﺮس‪.‬‬ ‫ﻳﺠﺐ ﺗﻮﻓﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮﺟﺎع ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ أو اﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ اﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ ﻗﺪر اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻄﺎع‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل اﻟﻤﺪاﺧﻞ اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻨﺔ أو اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻊ‪.‬‬ ‫إذا آﺎﻧﺖ اﻟﻨﻘﺤﺮة هﻲ اﻟﻤﻔﻀﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﺠﺐ إﺗﺒﺎع ﻣﻌﻴﺎر ﻋﺎﻟﻤﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﺤﻮﻳﻞ اﻟﻨﺼﻲ‪.‬‬

‫‪5.2‬‬

‫أﺷﻜﺎل أﺳﻤﺎء اﻷﺷﺨﺎص‬ ‫‪5.2.1‬‬

‫‪5.3‬‬

‫أﺷﻜﺎل أﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻌﺎﺋﻼت‬ ‫‪5.3.1‬‬

‫‪5.4‬‬

‫ﻋﻨﺪ اﺣﺘﻮاء اﺳﻢ اﻟﻌﺎﺋﻠﺔ ﻟﻌﺪة آﻠﻤﺎت‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﺠﺐ اﺧﺘﻴﺎر آﻠﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ ﺑﻨﺎء ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻘﺎﻟﻴﺪ اﻟﻤﻮﻃﻦ واﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻤﺮﺗﺒﻄﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺎﺋﻠﺔ‪ ،‬آﻤﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻈﺎهﺮ واﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻊ‪.‬‬

‫أﺷﻜﺎل أﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺎت‬ ‫‪5.4.1‬‬

‫‪5.5‬‬

‫ﻋﻨﺪ اﺣﺘﻮاء اﺳﻢ اﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻟﻌﺪة آﻠﻤﺎت‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﺠﺐ اﺧﺘﻴﺎر آﻠﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ ﺑﻨﺎء ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻘﺎﻟﻴﺪ اﻟﻤﻮﻃﻦ واﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺮﺗﺒﻄﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺨﺺ‪ ،‬آﻤﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻈﺎهﺮ واﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻊ‪.‬‬

‫ﻳﺠﺐ اﻋﻄﺎء اﺳﻢ اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺮﺗﻴﺐ اﻟﻤﺒﺎﺷﺮ‪ ،‬آﻤﺎ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻈﺎهﺮ أو اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻊ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎء‪:‬‬ ‫‪5.4.1.1‬‬

‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻜﻮن اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺔ ﺟﺰء ﻣﻦ ﺳﻠﻄﺔ أو ﻣﻨﻄﻘﺔ إﻗﻠﻴﻤﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﺠﺐ أن ﻳﺒﺪأ أو ﻳﺤﺘﻮي اﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺸﻜﻞ اﻟﺤﺎﻟﻲ ﻻﺳﻢ اﻟﻤﻨﻄﻘﺔ اﻟﻤﻌﻨﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ واﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ اﻷﻓﻀﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺧﺪﻣﺔ‬ ‫اﺣﺘﻴﺎﺟﺎت ﻣﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﻲ اﻟﻔﻬﺮس؛‬

‫‪5.4.1.2‬‬

‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﻀﻤﻦ اﺳﻢ اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺔ اﻟﺘﺒﻌﻴﺔ‪ ،‬أو وﻇﻴﻔﺔ ﺗﺎﺑﻌﺔ‪ ،‬أو ﻋﺪم إﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺔ اﻟﺘﺎﺑﻌﺔ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻳﺠﺐ ﺑﺪأ اﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻦ ﺑﺎﺳﻢ اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺔ اﻷم‪.‬‬

‫أﺷﻜﺎل اﻟﻌﻨﺎوﻳﻦ اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻨﺔ‬ ‫إﻣﺎ أن ﻳﻜﻮن اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻦ ﻋﻨﻮان ﻗﺎﺋﻢ ﺑﺬاﺗﻪ‪ ،‬أو ﻳﻜﻮن اﺳﻢ‪/‬ﻋﻨﻮان ﻣﺸﺘﺮك‪ ،‬أو ﻋﻨﻮان ﻣﺸﺮوط ﺑﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻣﺤﺪدة‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ‬ ‫اﺳﻢ اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﻜﺎن‪ ،‬اﻟﻠﻐﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﺘﺎرﻳﺦ‪ ،‬اﻟﺦ‪.‬‬ ‫‪5.5.1‬‬

‫ﻳﺠﺐ أن ﻳﻜﻮن اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻦ هﻮ اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻷﺻﻠﻲ أو اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻷآﺜﺮ ﺷﻴﻮﻋﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻈﺎهﺮ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎء‪:‬‬ ‫‪5.5.1.1‬‬

‫ﻋﻨﺪم اﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﺳﻢ ﺷﺎﺋﻊ ﻓﻲ ﻟﻐﺔ وآﺘﺎﺑﺔ اﻟﻔﻬﺮس‪ ،‬ﻳﺠﺐ إﻋﻄﺎء اﻷوﻟﻮﻳﺔ ﻟﻼﺳﻢ اﻟﺸﺎﺋﻊ آﻤﺎ‬ ‫هﻮ ﻣﻮﺟﻮد ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻈﺎهﺮ أو اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻊ‬

‫‪40‬‬

‫‪ .6‬اﻟﻤﻠﻔﺎت اﻹﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﻳﺠﺐ ﺑﻨﺎء اﻟﺴﺠﻼت اﻹﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﺴﻴﻄﺮة ﻋﻠﻰ اﻷﺷﻜﺎل اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻨﺔ ﻟﻸﺳﻤﺎء واﻹﻳﺤﺎﻻت اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ آﻨﻘﺎط وﺻﻮل ﻟﻤﺠﺎﻻت ﻣﺜﻞ‬ ‫اﻷﺷﺨﺎص‪ ،‬واﻟﻌﺎﺋﻼت‪ ،‬واﻟﻬﻴﺌﺎت‪ ،‬واﻷﻋﻤﺎل‪ ،‬واﻟﺘﻌﺎﺑﻴﺮ‪ ،‬واﻟﻤﻈﺎهﺮ‪ ،‬واﻷوﻋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬واﻟﻤﻔﺎهﻴﻢ‪ ،‬واﻷﺟﺴﺎم‪ ،‬واﻷﺣﺪاث واﻷﻣﺎآﻦ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .7‬أﺳﺲ اﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺎت اﻟﺒﺤﺚ‬ ‫‪7.1‬‬

‫اﻟﺒﺤﺚ واﻹﺳﺘﺮﺟﺎع‬ ‫ﻧﻘﺎط اﻟﻮﺻﻮل هﻲ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ‪ (1‬ﺗﻀﻤﻦ اﺳﺘﺮﺟﺎع اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ واﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ‬ ‫واﻟﻤﺼﺎدر اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﻬﻢ و ‪ (2‬ﺗﺤﺪد ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻟﺒﺤﺚ‪.‬‬ ‫‪7.1.1‬‬

‫أدوات اﻟﺒﺤﺚ‬ ‫ﻳﺠﺐ ﺑﺤﺚ واﺳﺘﺮﺟﺎع اﻷﺳﻤﺎء‪ ،‬واﻟﻌﻨﺎوﻳﻦ‪ ،‬واﻟﻤﻮاﺿﻴﻊ ﺑﺸﺘﻰ اﻷدوات اﻟﻤﺘﺎﺣﺔ ﺑﻔﻬﺮس اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺔ‪ ،‬أو اﻟﻤﻠﻒ‬ ‫اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻲ‪ ،‬وﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ اﻟﻤﺜﺎل‪ ،‬اﻷﺷﻜﺎل اﻟﻜﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﻟﻸﺳﻤﺎء‪ ،‬أو اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎت اﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬أو اﻟﺠﻤﻞ‪ ،‬أو‬ ‫اﻻﺧﺘﺼﺎرات‪ ،‬اﻟﺦ‪.‬‬

‫‪7.1.2‬‬

‫ﻧﻘﺎط اﻟﻮﺻﻮل اﻟﺘﻲ ﻻ ﻏﻨﻰ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ هﻲ ﺗﻠﻚ اﻟﻤﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺤﻘﻮل واﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎت اﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﺠﺎل ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ أو اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫‪7.1.2.1‬‬

‫ﺗﺤﺘﻮي ﻧﻘﺎط اﻟﻮﺻﻮل اﻟﺘﻲ ﻻ ﻏﻨﻰ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‪:‬‬ ‫اﺳﻢ اﻟﻤﺆﻟﻒ أو اﺳﻢ اﻟﻤﺆﻟﻒ اﻷول ﻋﻨﺪ ﺗﺴﻤﻴﺔ أآﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺨﺺ‬ ‫اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻲ أو اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻟﻤﺰود ﻟﻠﻤﻈﻬﺮ‬ ‫ﺳﻨﺔ أو ﺳﻨﻮات اﻟﻨﺸﺮ و اﻹﺻﺪار‬ ‫اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻦ ﻟﻠﻌﻤﻞ‪/‬اﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫أرﻗﺎم اﻟﺘﺼﻨﻴﻒ‬ ‫اﻷرﻗﺎم اﻟﻤﻌﺘﻤﺪة‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﺤﺪدات‪ ،‬و“اﻟﻌﻨﺎوﻳﻦ اﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻴﺔ“ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﺎل اﻟﻤﻨﺸﻮد‬ ‫اﻟﺘﺄﺷﻴﺮة اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﺎء‪.‬‬

‫‪7.1.2.2‬‬

‫ﺗﺤﺘﻮي ﻧﻘﺎط اﻟﻮﺻﻮل اﻟﺘﻲ ﻻ ﻏﻨﻰ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‪:‬‬ ‫اﻻﺳﻢ أو اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻦ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﺎل‬ ‫اﻷﺷﻜﺎل اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻻﺳﻢ أو ﻋﻨﻮان اﻟﻤﺠﺎل‬

‫‪7.1.3‬‬

‫ﻧﻘﺎط وﺻﻮل إﺿﺎﻓﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن ﺗﺨﺪم ﺣﻘﻮل ﻣﻦ أﺟﺰاء أﺧﺮى ﻟﻠﻮﺻﻒ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻲ أو اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻘﺎط وﺻﻮل‬ ‫إﺿﺎﻓﻴﺔ أو ﺗﻨﻘﻴﺢ أو ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ اﻷدوات ﻋﻨﺪ اﺳﺘﺮﺟﺎع ﻋﺪد آﺒﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺴﺠﻼت‪ .‬ﺗﺤﺘﻮي ﻣﺜﻞ هﺬﻩ اﻟﺤﻘﻮل ﻓﻲ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻠﻔﺎت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‪ ،‬وﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻘﺘﺼﺮة‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ‪:‬‬ ‫أﺳﻤﺎء إﺿﺎﻓﻴﺔ إﻟﻰ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ اﻻﺳﻢ اﻷول‬ ‫أﺳﻤﺎء ﻣﻤﺜﻠﻴﻦ أو أﺷﺨﺎص‪ ،‬أو ﻋﺎﺋﻼت‪ ،‬أو هﻴﺌﺎت ﻓﻲ أدوار أﺧﺮى ﻏﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﺆﻟﻒ‬ ‫ﻋﻨﺎوﻳﻦ ﻣﻮازﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺎوﻳﻦ ﻓﺮﻋﻴﺔ‪،‬اﻟﺦ‬ ‫اﻻﺳﻢ اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻦ ﻟﻠﺴﻠﺴﻠﺔ‬ ‫ﻣﺤﺪدات اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬

‫‪41‬‬

‫ﻣﻜﺎن اﻻﺻﺪار‬ ‫اﻟﻮﺳﻂ اﻟﻤﺎدي‪.‬‬ ‫ﺗﺤﺘﻮي ﻣﺜﻞ هﺬﻩ اﻟﺤﻘﻮل ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻠﻔﺎت اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ‪ ،‬وﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻘﺘﺼﺮة‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ‪:‬‬ ‫أﺳﻤﺎء وﻋﻨﺎوﻳﻦ اﻟﻔﺌﺎت ذات اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ‬ ‫ﻣﺤﺪدات اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ‬

‫‪42‬‬

‫اﻟﻤﻠﺤﻖ‬ ‫أهﺪاف ﺑﻨﺎء ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ‬ ‫ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻋﺪة أهﺪاف ﻟﺘﻮﺟﻴﻪ ﺑﻨﺎء ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ‪ .25‬وأهﻤﻬﺎ راﺣﺔ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪم‪.‬‬ ‫• راﺣﺔ ﻣﺴﺘﺨﺪم اﻟﻔﻬﺮس‪ .‬ﻳﺠﺐ ﺑﻨﺎء اﻟﻘﺮارات اﻟﻤﺘﺨﺬة ﻓﻲ ﺻﻨﺎﻋﺔ اﻷﺷﻜﺎل اﻟﻮﺻﻔﻴﺔ واﻟﻤﻘﻨﻨﺔ ﻷﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻤﺪاﺧﻞ ﻣﻊ وﺿﻊ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪم ﻓﻲ اﻟﺤﺴﺒﺎن‪.‬‬ ‫• اﻻﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻟﺸﺎﺋﻊ‪ .‬ﻳﺠﺐ أن ﺗﻜﻮن اﻟﻤﻔﺮدات اﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻮﺻﻒ واﻻﺳﺘﺮﺟﺎع ﻣﺘﻼﺋﻤﺔ ﻣﻊ أﻏﻠﺒﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﻴﻦ‪.‬‬ ‫• اﻟﻌﺮض‪ .‬ﻳﺠﺐ أن ﺗﻜﻮن اﻟﻔﺌﺎت اﻟﻤﻮﺻﻮﻓﺔ وأﺷﻜﺎل اﻷﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻨﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺪاﺧﻞ ﻣﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﺼﻒ اﻟﻤﺠﺎل ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪.‬‬ ‫• اﻟﺪﻗﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﺠﺐ ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮ اﻟﻔﺌﺔ اﻟﻤﻮﺻﻮﻓﺔ ﺑﻨﺰاهﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫• اﻟﻜﻔﺎﻳﺔ واﻟﺤﺎﺟﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﺠﺐ اﺣﺘﻮاء ﻓﻘﻂ اﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ اﻟﻤﻮﺻﻮﻓﺔ وأﺷﻜﺎل اﻷﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻨﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺪاﺧﻞ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻠﺒﻲ اﺣﺘﻴﺎﺟﺎت اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪم‬ ‫واﻟﻼزﻣﺔ ﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ اﻟﻤﺠﺎل ﻣﻦ ﻏﻴﺮ اﻟﺘﺒﺎس‪.‬‬ ‫• اﻷهﻤﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﺠﺐ أن ﺗﻜﻮن اﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ذات اهﻤﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫• اﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎد‪ .‬ﻋﻨﺪ ﺗﻮﻓﺮ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺑﺪﻳﻠﺔ ﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ اﻟﻬﺪف‪،‬ﻳﺠﺐ إﻋﻄﺎء اﻷوﻟﻮﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻌﺰز اﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎد ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻋﺎم )ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺜﺎل‪ ،‬اﻷﻗﻞ ﺗﻜﻠﻔﺔ أو اﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﻷﺑﺴﻂ(‬ ‫• اﻟﺘﻮﺣﻴﺪ‪ .‬ﻳﺠﺐ ﺗﻮﺣﻴﺪ اﻷوﺻﺎف وإﻧﺸﺎء ﻧﻘﺎط اﻟﻮﺻﻮل إﻟﻰ أﻗﺼﻰ ﻣﺪى وﻣﺴﺘﻮى ﻣﻤﻜﻦ‪ .‬ذﻟﻚ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ اﺳﺘﻘﺮار أآﺒﺮ ﻣﻤﺎ‬ ‫ﻳﺰﻳﺪ اﻟﻘﺪرة ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺒﺎدل اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ و اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫• اﻻﻧﺪﻣﺎج‪ .‬ﻳﺠﺐ ﻗﺪر اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻄﺎع‪ ،‬ﺑﻨﺎء اﻷوﺻﺎف ﻟﺠﻤﻴﻊ أﻧﻮاع اﻟﻤﻮاد واﻷﺷﻜﺎل اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻨﺔ ﻷﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻤﺠﺎﻻت ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ‬ ‫ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ ﻣﺸﺘﺮآﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻳﺠﺐ أن ﺗﻜﻮن اﻟﻘﻮاﻧﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ‬ ‫• ﻣﻮﺛﻘﺔ وﻏﻴﺮ ﻋﺸﻮاﺋﻴﺔ‬ ‫وﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﻼﺣﻆ أﻧﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻌﺾ اﻷﺣﻴﺎن ﻗﺪ ﺗﺘﻀﺎرب هﺬﻩ اﻷهﺪاف ﻣﻊ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ اﻟﺒﻌﺾ‪ ،‬وﺳﺘﺘﺨﺬ ﺣﻠﻮل ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ وﻣﻮﺛﻘﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫]ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻜﻨﺰ اﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮﻋﻲ‪ ،‬هﻨﺎﻟﻚ أهﺪاف ﻣﻄﺒﻘﺔ‪ ،‬وﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻣﺸﻤﻮﻟﺔ ﺿﻤﻦ هﺬا اﻟﺒﻴﺎن[‬

‫‪ 25‬اﺳﺘﻨﺎدا ﻋﻠﻰ اﻷدب اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻲ‪ ،‬وﺧﺎﺻﺔ اﻟﺼﺎدرة ﻋﻦ راﻧﺠﺎﻧﺎﺛﺎن و ﻟﻴﺒﻨﻴﺰ آﻤﺎ وﺻﻔﺖ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻔﻴﻨﻮﻧﻴﻮز‪ ،‬ا‪ .‬اﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪة اﻟﻔﻜﺮﻳﺔ ﻟﻤﺆﺳﺴﺎت اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت‪.‬‬ ‫آﻤﺒﺮدج‪ : Mass ،‬ﻣﻄﺒﻌﺔ ‪ .2000 ،MIT‬ص‪.68 .‬‬

‫‪43‬‬

GLOSSARY This Glossary includes terms found in the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles that are being used in a specific way (not simply the usual dictionary definition). Access point – A name, term, code, etc., under which a bibliographic or authority record or reference will be found. [Source: FRANAR] Agent – A person (author, publisher, sculptor, editor, director, etc.) or a group (organization, corporation, library, orchestra, country, federation, etc.) or an automaton (weather recording device, software translation program, etc.) that has a role in the lifecycle of a resource. [Source: DCMI Agents Working Group, working definition] See also Author, Creator Attribute – Characteristic of an entity; an attribute can be inherent in an entity or externally imputed. [Source: FRBR] Author – A creator responsible for the intellectual or artistic content of a textual work. [Source: IME ICC] See also Agent, Creator Authority record – A record in an authority file for which the organizing element is the authorized heading for an entity (agent, work/expression, or subject) as established by the cataloguing agency responsible. [Source: IME ICC] See also Access point, Authorized heading, Controlled form of name Authorized heading – The uniform controlled access point for an entity. [Source: IME ICC] See also Access point, Authority record, Controlled form of name Bibliographic description – a set of bibliographic data recording and identifying a bibliographic resource. [Source: ISBD(CR)] Bibliographic record – The set of data elements that describe and provide access to manifestations and identify related works and expressions. {Source: IME ICC] Bibliographic resource – A manifestation or item. Bibliographical unit See Manifestation Collection – 1. A set of two or more works combined or issued together. 2. A set of bibliographic resources held or created by a given institution. [Source: IME ICC] Concept – An abstract notion or idea. [Source: FRANAR, FRBR] Controlled form of name – Authorized and variant forms of names given to entities, formulated according to a set of rules and recorded in an authority record, in order to provide access to bibliographic and authority records (sometimes also called controlled heading, authorized heading, or variant heading). [Source: IME ICC] See also Access point, Authorized heading, Authority record, Name

44

Conventional name – A name, other than the real or official name, by which a corporate body, place, or thing has come to be known. [Source: modified from AACR2 Revision 2002, Glossary] Corporate Body – An organization or group of persons and/or organisations that is identified by a particular name and that acts, or may act, as a unit. [Source: modified from FRANAR, FRBR] Creator – An entity responsible for the intellectual or artistic content of a work. See also Author, Agent Descriptive cataloguing – The part of cataloguing that provides both descriptive data and nonsubject access points. [Source: IME ICC] See also Subject cataloguing Event – An action or occurrence. [Source: FRANAR, FRBR] Expression – The intellectual or artistic realisation of a work. [Source: FRANAR, FRBR] Family – Two or more persons related by birth, marriage, adoption, or similar legal status. [Source: FRANAR, as modified by IME ICC] Heading See Access point Item – A single exemplar of a manifestation. [Source: FRANAR, FRBR] Key-title – The unique name assigned to a continuing resource by the ISSN Network and inseparably linked with its ISSN. The key title may be the same as the title proper; or, in order to achieve uniqueness, it can be constructed by the addition of identifying and/or qualifying elements such as name of issuing body, place of publication, edition statement, etc. (see ISSN Manual). [Source: ISBD (CR)] Manifestation – The physical embodiment of an expression of a work. [Source: FRANAR, FRBR] Name – A character or group of words and/or characters by which an entity is known; includes the words/characters designating a person, family, corporate body, object, concept, event, or place, as well as the title given to a work, expression, manifestation, or item. [Source: FRBR as modified in FRANAR] See also Controlled form of name. Object – A material thing. [Source: FRBR] Person – An individual or a persona established or adopted by an individual or group. [Source: FRBR as modified in FRANAR] Place – A location. [Source: FRBR]

45

Physical format (an attribute of original and surrogate manifestations) – The container or medium in/on which an expression of a work is recorded (e.g., book, CD, MP3, videocassette, DVD, microfilm, digital file, map, globe, score, etc.). [Source: IME ICC] Subject cataloguing – The part of cataloguing that provides subject heading/terms and/or classification. [Source: IME ICC] See also Descriptive cataloguing Uniform title – 1. The particular title by which a work or expression is to be identified for cataloguing purposes and for collocation in displays of sets of expressions or manifestations of the work or expression. Examples are collective titles and conventional titles used for collocation, form headings used to organize displays, and unique titles used to distinguish among works with the same title. [Source: modified from AACR2] 2. The authorized form by which variant titles of different manifestations of a work, with or without author, are linked/grouped together for searching/access purposes. [Source: GARR] Work – A distinct intellectual or artistic creation (i.e., the intellectual or artistic content.). [Source FRANAR, FRBR, as modified by IME ICC]

Sources AACR2 – Anglo-American cataloguing rules. – 2nd edition, 2002 revision. – Ottawa: Canadian Library Association; London: Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals; Chicago: American Library Association, 2002DCMI Agents Working Group – Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, Agents Working Group. [Web page, 2003]: http://dublincore.org/groups/agents/ (working definitions – report is not yet final) FRANAR – Functional requirements and numbering of authority records: a conceptual model – draft 2003. (Working definitions, report is not yet final) FRBR – Functional requirements for bibliographic records: Final report. – Munich: Saur, 1998. (IFLA UBCIM publications new series; v. 19) GARR – Guidelines for authority records and references. 2nd ed., rev. – Munich: Saur, 2001. (IFLA UBCIM publications new series; v. 23) IME ICC – IFLA Meeting of Experts on an International Cataloguing Code (1st : Frankfurt: 2003), recommendations from the participants ISBD (CR) – ISBD (CR): International standard bibliographic description for serials and other continuing resources. – Munich: Saur, 2002. (IFLA UBCIM publications new series; v. 24) Also see MulDiCat: http://subito.biblio.etc.tu-bs.de/muldicat/

46

‫ﻣﺴﺮد‬ ‫ﻧﻘﻄﺔ اﻹﺗﺎﺣﺔ‪ :‬اﺳﻢ‪ ،‬ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ‪ ،‬رﻣﺰ‪ ... ،‬اﻟﺦ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻟﻪ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ اﻟﺤﺼﻮل ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ ﺑﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ أو اﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ أو إﺣﺎﻟﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺴﺌﻮل‪ :‬ﺷﺨﺺ )ﻣﺆﻟﻒ‪ ،‬ﻧﺎﺷﺮ‪ ،‬ﻧﺤﺎت‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﺮر‪ ،‬ﻣﺨﺮج‪ ... ،‬اﻟﺦ( أو ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ )ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﺷﺮآﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ‪ ،‬اورآﺴﺘﺮا‪ ،‬ﺑﻠﺪ‪ ،‬اﺗﺤﺎد‪،‬‬ ‫‪ ...‬اﻟﺦ( ﺁﻟﺔ أو ﺟﻬﺎز )ﺟﻬﺎز رﺻﺪ ﺟﻮي‪ ،‬ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ ﺁﻟﻴﺔ‪ ... ،‬اﻟﺦ( ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻧﻬﺎ اﻟﻘﻴﺎم ﺑﺪور ﻓﻲ داﺋﺮة ﺣﻴﺎة اﻟﻤﺼﺪر‪.‬‬ ‫اﻧﻈﺮ أﻳﻀﺎ اﻟﻤﺆﻟﻒ‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﻨﺸﺊ‬ ‫اﻟﺼﻔﺔ‪ :‬وﺻﻒ ﻟﻜﻴﺎن‪ ،‬ﺧﺎﺻﻴﺔ ﺗﻮرث ﻟﻪ‪.‬‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺆﻟﻒ‪ :‬اﻟﻤﺴﺌﻮل ﻋﻦ اﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮي اﻟﻔﻜﺮي أو اﻟﻔﻨﻲ ﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻧﺼﻲ‪.‬‬ ‫اﻧﻈﺮ أﻳﻀﺎ اﻟﻤﺴﺌﻮل‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﻨﺸﺊ‬ ‫اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻹﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ‪ :‬ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ ﺑﺪاﺧﻞ اﻟﻤﻠﻒ اﻹﺳﺘﻨﺎدي اﻟﺘﻲ ﺑﻬﺎ ﻳﻜﻮن ﻋﻨﺼﺮ اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻢ هﻮ اﻟﺮأس اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻦ‪.‬‬ ‫اﻧﻈﺮ أﻳﻀﺎ ﻧﻘﻄﺔ اﻹﺗﺎﺣﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻦ‪ ،‬اﻟﺸﻜﻞ اﻟﻤﻀﺒﻮط ﻟﻼﺳﻢ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻦ‪ :‬ﻧﻘﻄﺔ اﻹﺗﺎﺣﺔ اﻟﻤﻀﺒﻮﻃﺔ ﻟﻜﻴﺎن ﻣﺎ‪.‬‬ ‫اﻧﻈﺮ أﻳﻀﺎ ﻧﻘﻄﺔ اﻹﺗﺎﺣﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﺸﻜﻞ اﻟﻤﻀﺒﻮط ﻟﻼﺳﻢ‬ ‫اﻟﻮﺻﻒ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻲ‪ :‬ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ﺗﺴﺠﻞ وﺗﻌﺮف اﻟﻤﺼﺪر اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻲ‪.‬‬ ‫اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎت اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻮﺻﻒ اﻟﺸﻜﻞ اﻟﻤﺎدي وﺗﻌﺮف ﺑﺎﻷﻋﻤﺎل اﻟﻤﺮﺗﺒﻄﺔ واﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮات اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﻌﻤﻞ ﻣﺎ‪.‬‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺼﺪر اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻲ‪ :‬ﻣﻈﻬﺮ أو وﺣﺪة‪.‬‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ‪:‬‬

‫‪ -1‬ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﻦ أو أآﺜﺮ ﻣﺠﻤﻌﺔ وﻣﻨﺸﻮرة ﻣﻌﺎ‬ ‫‪ -2‬ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺼﺎدر اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ وﺿﻌﺖ أو أﻧﺸﺌﺖ ﺑﻮاﺳﻄﺔ ﺟﻬﺔ ﻣﺎﻧﺤﺔ‪.‬‬

‫اﻟﻤﻔﻬﻮم‪ :‬ﻓﻜﺮة أو ﻣﻌﻠﻮﻣﺔ ﻣﺨﺘﺼﺮة‪.‬‬ ‫اﻟﺸﻜﻞ اﻟﻤﻀﺒﻮط ﻟﻼﺳﻢ‪ :‬اﻷﺷﻜﺎل اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻨﺔ واﻟﺒﺪﻳﻠﺔ ﻟﻸﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻤﻌﻄﺎة ﻟﻜﻴﺎﻧﺎت‪ ،‬ﻋﻮﻟﺠﺖ وﻓﻘﺎ ﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ وﺳﺠﻠﺖ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ أﺟﻞ اﺗﺎﺣﺔ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ واﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ )ﻓﻲ ﺑﻌﺾ اﻷﺣﻴﺎن ﻳﻄﻠﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ أﻳﻀﺎ اﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻀﺒﻮط‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻦ‪ ،‬أو اﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ اﻟﺒﺪﻳﻞ(‪.‬‬ ‫اﻧﻈﺮ أﻳﻀﺎ ﻧﻘﻄﺔ اﻹﺗﺎﺣﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻦ‪ ،‬اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ ﻟﻼﺳﻢ‬ ‫اﻹﺳﻢ اﻹﺻﻄﻼﺣﻲ‪ :‬اﺳﻢ‪ ،‬ﻏﻴﺮ اﻻﺳﻢ اﻟﺮﺳﻤﻲ‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﺮف ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻟﻪ هﻴﺌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻜﺎن‪ ،‬أو ﺷﻴﺊ‪.‬‬ ‫اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺔ‪ :‬ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺔ أو ﺟﻬﺔ أو ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻷﺷﺨﺎص أو اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎت ﺗﻌﺮف ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل اﺳﻢ ﻣﺤﺪد وﺗﻌﻤﻞ آﻮﺣﺪة واﺣﺪة‪.‬‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻨﺸﺊ‪ :‬آﻴﺎن ﻣﺴﺌﻮل ﻋﻦ اﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮي اﻟﻔﻜﺮي أو اﻟﻔﻨﻲ ﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻣﺎ‪.‬‬ ‫اﻧﻈﺮ أﻳﻀﺎ اﻟﻤﺆﻟﻒ‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﺴﺌﻮل‬ ‫اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻮﺻﻔﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﺟﺰء اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﺨﺎص ﺑﻤﻨﺢ آﻼ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎت اﻟﻮﺻﻔﻴﺔ وﻧﻘﺎط اﻹﺗﺎﺣﺔ ﻏﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪47‬‬

‫اﻧﻈﺮ أﻳﻀﺎ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﺤﺪث‪ :‬ﻓﻌﻞ أو ﺣﺎدﺛﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ‪ :‬اﻹدراك اﻟﻔﻜﺮي أو اﻟﻔﻨﻲ ﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻣﺎ‪.‬‬ ‫اﻟﻌﺎﺋﻠﺔ‪ :‬ﺷﺨﺼﺎن أو أآﺜﺮ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻄﺎن ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻴﻼد‪ ،‬اﻟﺰواج‪ ،‬اﻟﺘﺒﻨﻲ‪ ،‬أو ﻏﻴﺮهﺎ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺤﺎﻻت اﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﺸﺎﺑﻬﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ‪:‬‬ ‫اﻧﻈﺮ ﻧﻘﻄﺔ اﻹﺗﺎﺣﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻮﻋﺎء‪ :‬ﻣﺜﺎل ﻣﻔﺮد ﻟﻠﻤﻈﻬﺮ‪.‬‬ ‫اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻟﻤﻔﺘﺎﺣﻲ‪ :‬ﻋﻨﻮان ﻓﺮﻳﺪ ﻣﺮﺗﺐ وﻓﻘﺎ ﻟﻤﺼﺪر ﻣﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﺑﻮاﺳﻄﺔ ﺷﺒﻜﺔ اﻟﺘﺮﻗﻴﻢ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ اﻟﻤﻮﺣﺪ ﻟﻠﺴﻼﺳﻞ وداﺋﻢ اﻟﺼﻠﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻗﻢ‬ ‫اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ اﻟﻤﻮﺣﺪ ﻟﻠﺴﻼﺳﻞ اﻟﺨﺎص ﺑﻪ‪ .‬اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻟﻤﻔﺘﺎﺣﻲ رﺑﻤﺎ ﻳﻜﻮن هﻮ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ؛ أو‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺗﻔﺮدﻩ‪ ،‬ﻳﻤﻜﻦ اﻧﺸﺎﺋﻪ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل إﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ و‪/‬أو اﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ اﻟﻤﺤﺪدة ﻣﺜﻞ اﺳﻢ اﻟﺠﻬﺔ اﻟﻨﺎﺷﺮة‪ ،‬ﻣﻜﺎن اﻟﻨﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﻴﺎن اﻟﻄﺒﻌﺔ‪ ... ،‬اﻟﺦ‪.‬‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻈﻬﺮ‪ :‬اﻟﺸﻜﻞ اﻟﻤﺎدي اﻟﻤﻌﺒﺮ ﻋﻦ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻣﺎ‪.‬‬ ‫اﻻﺳﻢ‪ :‬آﻠﻤﺔ أو ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ آﻠﻤﺎت و‪/‬أو اﻟﺤﺮوف ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻟﻬﺎ ﻳﻌﺮف ﺑﻜﻴﺎن؛ وﺗﺘﻀﻤﻦ اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎت‪/‬اﻟﺤﺮوف ﺗﻮﺻﻴﻒ ﻟﺸﺨﺺ‪ ،‬ﻋﺎﺋﻠﺔ‪،‬‬ ‫هﻴﺌﺔ‪ ،‬آﻴﺎن‪ ،‬ﻣﻔﻬﻮم‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﺒﻴﺮ‪ ،‬ﺷﻜﻞ ﻣﺎدي‪ ،‬أو وﻋﺎء‪.‬‬ ‫اﻧﻈﺮ أﻳﻀﺎ اﻟﺸﻜﻞ اﻟﻤﻀﺒﻮط ﻟﻼﺳﻢ‬ ‫اﻟﺠﺴﻢ‪ :‬ﺷﻴﺊ ﻣﺎدي‪.‬‬ ‫اﻟﺸﺨﺺ‪ :‬آﻴﺎن ﻣﻔﺮد ﻣﺆﺳﺲ أو ﻣﺘﺒﻨﻰ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻓﺮد أو ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻜﺎن‪ :‬ﻣﻮﻗﻊ‬ ‫اﻟﺸﻜﻞ اﻟﻤﺎدي‪) :‬ﺻﻔﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻈﺎهﺮ اﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ واﻟﺒﺪﻳﻠﺔ( – اﻟﺤﺎوﻳﺔ‪ ،‬أو اﻟﻮﺳﻴﻂ اﻟﻤﺎدي اﻟﺬي ﻓﻴﻪ‪/‬ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺗﺴﺠﻞ ﺑﻴﺎﻧﺎت اﻟﻌﻤﻞ )ﻣﺜﺎل‪:‬‬ ‫آﺘﺎب‪ ،‬ﻗﺮص ﻣﺪﻣﺞ‪ ،MP3 ،‬ﺷﺮﻳﻂ ﻓﻴﺪﻳﻮ‪ ،DVD ،‬ﻣﺼﻐﺮات ﻓﻴﻠﻤﻴﺔ ‪ ...‬اﻟﺦ(‪.‬‬ ‫اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﺟﺰء اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﺨﺎص ﺑﺎﻟﺤﺼﻮل ﻋﻠﻰ رأس ﻣﻮﺿﻮع‪/‬ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت و‪/‬أو ﺗﺼﻨﻴﻒ‪.‬‬ ‫اﻧﻈﺮ أﻳﻀﺎ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻮﺻﻔﻴﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻟﻤﻮﺣﺪ‪:‬‬

‫‪ - 1‬اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻟﻤﺤﺪد اﻟﺬي ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻟﻪ ﻳﻌﺮف ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻤﻞ أو اﻟﻤﻈﻬﺮ ﺑﻐﺮض اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ وآﺬﻟﻚ ﺗﻨﻈﻴﻢ ﻋﺮض‬ ‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮات واﻷﺷﻜﺎل اﻟﻤﺎدﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﻤﻞ أو اﻟﻤﻈﻬﺮ‪ .‬ﻣﺜﺎل ﻋﻠﻰ ذﻟﻚ اﻟﻌﻨﺎوﻳﻦ اﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌﺔ‪ ،‬واﻟﻌﻨﺎوﻳﻦ‬ ‫اﻻﺻﻄﻼﺣﻴﺔ ﺑﻐﺮض اﻟﺘﺠﻤﻴﻊ‪ ،‬أﺷﻜﺎل اﻟﺮؤوس اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻨﻈﻴﻢ اﻟﻌﺮض ‪ ،‬ﻟﻌﻨﺎوﻳﻦ اﻟﻔﺮﻳﺪة اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺘﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﻌﻨﺎوﻳﻦ اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﻬﺬا اﻟﻌﻨﻮان‪.‬‬ ‫‪ - 2‬اﻟﺸﻜﻞ اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻦ اﻟﺬي ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻟﻪ ﺗﺠﻤﻊ اﻟﻌﻨﺎوﻳﻦ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﺪدة ﻟﻸﺷﻜﺎل اﻟﻤﺎدﻳﺔ اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﻌﻤﻞ واﺣﺪ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮاء ﻟﻬﺎ‬ ‫ﻣﺆﻟﻒ أو ﺑﺪون‪ ،‬وذﻟﻚ ﻷﻏﺮاض اﻟﺒﺤﺚ‪/‬اﻹﺗﺎﺣﺔ‪.‬‬

‫اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‪ :‬اﺑﺪاع ﻓﻜﺮي أو ﻓﻨﻲ ﻣﺘﻔﺮد )ﻣﺜﻞ‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮى اﻟﻔﻜﺮي أو اﻟﻔﻨﻲ(‪.‬‬

‫‪48‬‬

SUMMARY VOTES BY THE IME ICC1 AND IME ICC2 ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE IME ICC3, MARCH 2006 Results of the March 2006 IME ICC 1-2 Vote on the IME ICC3 Recommendations on the draft Statement of International Cataloguing Principles SUMMARY: A total of 22 countries cast votes in this round. Votes were received from 18 IME ICC 1 countries and from 4 countries representing the IME ICC 2. All issues were approved by majority vote. On Question no. 4 „Adding GMDs to indispensable access points,” the Germans reminded us of the conflict with ISBD, FRBR, etc., where GMDs are NOT mandatory. The General Material Designator will be added to this version of the draft Statement to follow the results of the voting, but the topic will be reviewed again for further IME ICC discussion when there is news (expected in 2006 or 2007) from the ISBD Review Group regarding GMDs. The ISBD Review Group is looking into the GMD issues for the consolidated ISBD. A „clean” version of the Draft Statement of International Cataloguing Principles is attached for your information. Translators are asked to please send their translations of this version to Susanne Oehlschlaeger for posting on the IME ICC Web sites. 1. LANGUAGE (5.1.3) = Approved Results: 18: Yes, I agree 0: No, I do not agree (keep Sept. 2005 wording) 0: Abstain 1 country split voted and the vote was not counted. The September 2005 draft now reads: 5.1.3. Language When names have been expressed in several languages, preference should be given to a heading based on information found on manifestations of the expression in the original language and script; but if the original language and script is one not normally used in the catalogue, the heading may be based on forms found on manifestations or in references in one of the languages and scripts best suited to the users of the catalogue. Access should be provided in the original language and script whenever possible, through either the authorized heading or a reference. If transliterations are desirable, an international standard for script conversion should be followed. The suggested revision of text would clarify that „references” means „reference sources” or means „cross-references” as follows: 5.1.3. Language When names have been expressed in several languages, preference should be given to a heading based on information found on manifestations of the expression in the original language and script; but if the original language and script is one not normally used in the catalogue, the heading may be based on forms found on manifestations or in reference sources in one of the languages and scripts best suited to the users of the catalogue. Access should be provided in the original language and script whenever possible, through either the authorized heading or a cross-reference. If transliterations are desirable, an international standard for script conversion should be followed.

49

IME ICC1

Vote

IME ICC2

Vote

Austria (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Argentina (2 votes)

Yes, I agree

Czech Republic (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Costa Rica (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Estonia (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Mexico (2 votes)

Yes, I agree

Finland (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Trinidad and Tobago (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

France (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Germany (*2 votes split)

Yes, I agree/No

Hungary (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Italy (3 votes)

Yes, I agree

Russia (2 votes)

Yes, I agree

Slovakia (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Slovenia (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Spain (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Sweden (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

United Kingdom (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Vatican City (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Total: 15 Countries – 19 votes

14 = yes

4 Countries – 6 votes

4=yes

*The DDB sent in a consolidated vote for 13 members of the Expert Group for Descriptive Cataloging

2. CORRECT THE TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR = Approved unanimously Results: 19: Yes, I agree 0: No, I do not agree (keep original Sept. 2005 wording) 0: Abstain The September 2005 draft now reads: 1 when the corporate body is part of a jurisdiction or territorial authority, the authorized heading should begin with or include the currently used form of the name of the territory concerned in the language and script best suited to the needs of the users of the catalogue; 2 when the corporate name implies subordination, or subordinate function, or is insufficient to identify the subordinate body, the authorized heading should begin with the name of the superior body. The typo was corrected on the September 23, 2005 version as shown above in bold and underlined („from” should be „form”). This will be fixed on the next draft.

50

IME ICC1

Vote

IME ICC2

Vote

Austria (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Argentina (2 votes)

Yes, I agree

Czech Republic (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Costa Rica (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Estonia (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Mexico (2 votes)

Yes, I agree

Finland (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Trinidad and Tobago (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

France (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Germany (*2 votes)

Yes, I agree

Hungary (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Italy (3 vote)

Yes, I agree

Russia (2 votes)

Yes, I agree

Slovakia (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Slovenia (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Spain (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Sweden (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

United Kingdom (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Vatican City (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Totals: 15 Countries – 19 votes

Yes =15

4 Countries – 6 votes

Yes = 4

*The DDB sent in a consolidated vote for 13 members of the Expert Group for Descriptive Cataloging

3. UNIFORM TITLES (5.5.1) = Approved Results: 16: Yes, I agree 1: No, I do not agree (keep original Sept. 2005 wording) 0: Abstain 1 country split vote; vote not counted The September 2005 draft now reads: 5.5.1. The uniform title should be the original title or the title most frequently found in manifestations of the work except 5.5.1.1. when there is a commonly used title in the language and script of the catalogue, preference should be given to the commonly used title as found in manifestations or reference sources. The suggested revision of 5.5.1.1 would simplify and clarify that in some circumstances the commonly used title in the language and script of the catalogue should be used rather than the title found in manifestations or reference sources, to read as follows:

51

5.5.1. The uniform title should be the original title or the title most frequently found in manifestations of the work except 5.5.1.1. when there is a commonly used title in the language and script of the catalogue, preference should be given to it. IME ICC1

Vote

IME ICC2

Vote

Austria (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Argentina (2 vote)

Yes, I agree

Czech Republic (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Costa Rica (1 vote)

No, I do not agree

Estonia (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Mexico (2 votes split)

Yes, I agree/No

Finland (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Trinidad and Tobago (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

France (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Germany (*2 votes)

Yes, I agree/No

Hungary (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Italy (3 votes)

Yes, I agree

Russia (2 votes)

Yes, I agree

Slovakia (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Slovenia (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Spain (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Sweden (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

United Kingdom (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Vatican City (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Totals: 15 Countries – 19 votes

Yes =14

4 Countries – 3 votes

Yes = 2 No =1

4. ADD GMDs TO INDESPENSABLE ACCESS POINTS = Approved by majority, but noted for future discussion following recommendations on GMDs from the ISBD Review Group. Please note the important observations from the German response. Results: 15: Yes, I agree 0: No, I do not agree (keep original Sept. 2005 wording) 2: Abstain 2 countries split vote; votes not counted The September 2005 draft now reads: 7.1.2. Indispensable access points are those based on the main attributes and relationships of each entity in the bibliographic or authority record.

52

7.1.2.1. Indispensable access points for bibliographic records include: the name of the creator or first named creator when more than one is named the title proper or supplied title for the manifestation the year (s) of publication or issuance the uniform title for the work/expression subject headings, subject terms classification numbers standard numbers, identifiers, and ‘key titles’ for the described entity. Even recognizing that the general material designators are under much discussion just now, the concept is still felt to be a mandatory one to include. The suggested revision would make the GMD mandatory, as follows: 7.1.2. Indispensable access points are those based on the main attributes and relationships of each entity in the bibliographic or authority record. 7.1.2.1. Indispensable access points for bibliographic records include: the name of the creator or first named creator when more than one is named the title proper or supplied title for the manifestation the year (s) of publication or issuance the uniform title for the work/expression a general material designation subject headings, subject terms classification numbers standard numbers, identifiers, and ‘key titles’ for the described entity. IME ICC1

Vote

IME ICC2

Vote

Austria (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Argentina (2 votes split)

Yes, I agree/Abstain

Czech Republic (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Costa Rica (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Estonia (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Mexico (2 votes split)

Yes, I agree/No

Finland (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Trinidad and Tobago (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

France (1 vote)

Abstain

Germany (*2 votes)

Yes, I agree – with comment: The addition of GMDs to indispensable access points is not in accordance with FRBR and ISBD. In FRBR, GMDs are not mandatory (SMDs are). In ISBD, the optional FRBR elements are treated as optional ISBD elements. It is important that the treatment of GMDs is done in accordance with the consolidated ISBD.

Hungary (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Italy (3 votes)

Yes, I agree

53

Russia (2 votes)

Yes, I agree

Slovakia (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Slovenia (1 vote)

Abstain

Spain (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Sweden (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

United Kingdom (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Vatican City (1 vote)

Yes, I agree

Totals: 13 Countries – 17 votes

Yes = 13

4 Countries – 2 votes

Yes = 2

*The DDB sent in a consolidated vote for 13 members of the Expert Group for Descriptive Cataloging

54

PRESENTATION PAPERS ‫ﻋﺮوض اﻷﺑﺤﺎث‬

IFLA’S ISBD PROGRAMME: PURPOSE, PROCESS, AND PROSPECTS Mauro Guerrini for John D. Byrum, Jr., Chair, ISBD Review Group Mr. Mauro Guerrini is professor of Library Science, and Cataloguing and Classification at the University of Florence, Italy, Department of Medieval and Renaissance Studies, and Dean of the Master in Cataloguing. He is the author of many works, especially on cataloguing; the latest is Verso nuovi principi e codici di catalogazione = Towards new principles and cataloguing codes (Milano: Sylvestre Bonnard, 2005). He is a member of the editorial board of Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, Accademie e biblioteche d’Italia, Biblioteche oggi, Bibliotheca, Bollettino AIB, and other professional journals; he co-director of the serie Pinakes (Florence) and Scienze bibliografiche (Udine). He is currently President of AIB (Italian Library Association) since 2005, and was the chair of the AIB Committee on Cataloguing (2 terms), is a member of the IFLA ISBD Review Group, member of the IFLA Cataloguing Committee, and a member of the IME ICC Planning Committee. He has chaired many conferences in Italy, including the International Conference on Electronic Resources (Rome, November 26-28, 2001) and the International Conference on Authority Control (Florence, February 10-12, 2003). His presentation is about the International Standard for Bibliographic Description, better known as the ISBD. This standard has guided cataloguing worldwide for several decades providing the list of elements, their prescribed order, and special punctuation to be used in standard bibliographic descriptions. _________________________________________________ Let me begin by briefly covering the origins, purposes, and coverage of the ISBDs. The concept of the International Standard Bibliographic Description has now endured for nearly 35 years and has proved to be IFLA’s most successful effort at promoting the cause of cataloguing standardization. One reason that explains why the ISBDs have flourished and remain essentially intact after more than a generation is the continuing influence of the forces that prompted their formulation in the first place. These include demands and opportunities arising from the automation of bibliographic control as well as the economic necessity of sharing cataloguing. Standardization of descriptive cataloguing has proved to be an economic and technological necessity to the creation, conversion, and use of machine-readable records. The ISBDs were also intended to serve as a principal component of IFLA’s program to promote Universal Bibliographic Control, the ideal of which in Dorothy Anderson’s words is „to make universally and promptly available, in a form which is internationally acceptable, basic bibliographic data for all publications issued in all countries.” The ISBDs seek to serve three primary purposes: First, and of greatest importance, they are intended to make it possible to interchange records from different sources. As subsidiary purposes, the ISBDs, secondly, have assisted in the interpretation of records across language barriers, so that records produced for users of one language can be interpreted by users of other languages. Thirdly, they have facilitated the conversion of bibliographic records to electronic form.

57

The first of the ISBDs to be published was the International Standard Bibliographic Description for Monographic Publications (ISBD (M)), which appeared in 1971. There have followed projects to produce ISBDs for Serials, Non-book material, Cartographic materials, Rare books, Printed music, and, most recently Electronic resources. For article level publications, Guidelines for the application of the ISBDs to the description of component parts was issued. The entire inventory of the ISBDs in all their editions is listed on IFLANET; in every case, at least the latest version of each ISBD is freely available in an HTML or PDF format.26 Along the way, the need for a general framework to which all the ISBDs would conform was felt, resulting in production of ISBD(G); the primary utility of G is that of ensuring harmony among the other ISBDs. Schedule and procedures for issuance of new or revised ISBDs Procedures are essential in all standardization work in order to ensure that the steps by which a document becomes a new or revised standard are well known and consistently followed. The ISBDs are no exception to this rule. As a result, at the 1989 IFLA Conference, the Section on Cataloguing adopted a schedule and established procedures for development and distribution of such documents as new or revised ISBDs. In 2002, these procedures were updated to take advantage of the opportunity for electronic publication of texts, both in draft and final form; to speed up the review process by using email to announce the availability of drafts for review; and to enable quicker return of comments and suggestions regarding these drafts to the ISBD Review Group. Originally it was thought that each ISBD should be considered for updating on a five-year cycle. More pragmatically, they have been revised as the need has arisen to implement general applicable changes or by the evolution of library materials, such as those that resulted in publication of ISBD(ER) and, more recently, the ISBD for continuing resources. There are essentially five phases in the development of a new and revised ISBD. •

Creation of draft text. During this phase, a working group may be appointed comprising cataloguing experts and, when appropriate, format specialists from both within and outside of IFLA, unless the Review Group believes that it itself possesses sufficient expertise to accomplish the objectives of the revision. Typically for every project, an editor is designated to prepare the text according to the decisions of the working group.

•

Worldwide review. Once a draft text is completed, it is ready for worldwide review and comment. At this point, the text is forwarded for posting on IFLANET. Thereupon, an announcement is sent to IFLA-L and other appropriate electronic networks. Normally, two months are allowed for review of an ISBD undergoing revision and usually an additional month if the text is entirely new.

•

Final revision. All comments are considered. In accordance with the group decisions, the editor revises the draft. At this point, special attention is given to provision of examples in a variety of languages in the text and appendices and the preparation of an index. When a final text is determined, the ISBD Review Group as a whole goes over the text, primarily to ensure conformance with ISBD(G).

•

Balloting. The final version of the new or revised ISBD is then sent to the Cataloguing Section’s Standing Committee and any co-sponsoring Section. The ballot provides only two

26

58

http://www.ifla.org/VI/3/nd1/isbdlist.htm

options: to approve or to disapprove. However, editorial and sometimes more substantive comments are conveyed; these are considered. Ballots not returned by close of voting are considered to be affirmative votes. One month is allowed for this phase. •

Publication and workshop. If the outcome is a vote of approval as is typically the case, the text is scheduled for publication. Today, in all cases, the text is issued electronically, although the e-text may be delayed at the request of the publisher if the text is also to be published in print. As the final step in the process in the case of new ISBDs or those extensively revised, a workshop may be held in conjunction with an IFLA conference to promote understanding and use of the publication.

Although, as already mentioned, some ISBDs have been developed or revised to meet particular needs, there have been two overall revision campaigns affecting the entire Family of ISBDs. Such occurs when changes are determined that have an across-the-board effect. First General Review Project The initial overall revision resulted in the creation of the ISBD Review Committee, which first met in August 1981. The Committee established three major objectives set out for the first general review project: (1) to harmonize provisions, achieving increased consistency, (2) to improve examples, and, (3) to make the provisions more applicable to cataloguers working with materials published in non-roman scripts. In addition, two narrower objectives motivated this particular revision effort: (4) to review the use of the equals sign (as its use in bibliographic descriptions had been the source of some controversy); and, (5) to remove coverage of machine-readable material from the ISBD for Non-Book Materials. By the end of the decade, the ISBDs had been re-published in „Revised editions.” In addition, a separate ISBD was created for Computer Files, which, because of rapid advances in technology, was soon superseded by creation of an ISBD for Electronic Resources. Second General Review Project In the early 1990s, the Cataloguing Section in cooperation with other Sections set up the Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). One immediate consequence of this development was the decision to suspend most revision work on the ISBDs while the FRBR Group pursued its charge to „recommend a basic level of functionality and basic data requirements for records created by national bibliographic agencies.” This decision resulted in permanent suspension of a project to identify the components of a „Concise ISBD(M),” because it was expected that FRBR’s findings would in effect provide such a baseline.

59

In 1998, the FRBR Study Group published its Final Report27, and the ISBD Review Group was reconstituted to initiate a full-scale review of the ISBDs in order to implement FRBR’s recommendations for a basic level national bibliographic record. In the ISBDs, national bibliographic agencies are called upon to „prepare the definitive description containing all the mandatory elements set out in the relevant ISBD insofar as the information is applicable to the publication being described.” To facilitate implementation of this principle, the ISBDs designate as „optional” those data elements that are not mandatory when applicable. Therefore, the main task in pursuing the second general review has entailed a close look at the ISBD data elements that are now mandatory in order to make optional any that are optional in FRBR. The ISBD Review Group has completed work on three of the ISBDs – ISDB(M), ISBD(CR) and ISBD(G). The Review Group is currently updating three: the ISBD for Cartographic Materials; the ISBD for Antiquarian books, and the ISBD for Electronic Resources. However, except for ISBD(A), these current projects have been put on hold for one year, pending development of the Consolidated Version of the ISBDs, a project I will discuss further later in this presentation. Thus, for more than three decades, IFLA’s ISBD program has yielded standards for representing bibliographic data for all types of library materials and maintained these standards through one or more revisions. The ISBDs have been officially translated into Arabic, Catalan, Chinese, Croatian, Czech, Dutch, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Latvian, Lithuanian, Macedonian, Portuguese, Romanian, Serbian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish and Ukrainian. In turn, the ISBDs have guided the work of national cataloguing committees in updating their codes to foster internationally accepted practices, a point underscored by the compilations of practices by various rules and AACR that was prepared for the 2003 and 2004 meetings of Cataloguing Experts.28 While it is true that in some cases, national rules do not conform to the provisions of the ISBDs in every detail, the general impression is overall compliance and considerable harmony among themselves and with IFLA’s recommended practices. Today’s publication patterns are changing, largely as a result of the electronic environment in which we increasingly function. As interest in metadata to promote control and access to electronic resources increases, the ISBDs will enjoy new opportunities to influence content and use of these schemas, since most of them will define data elements already familiar to the ISBDs. On the other hand, not only are there new bibliographic situations to consider, but also not every bibliographic practice already in place continues to be as useful now as it was formerly. Therefore, it is necessary for IFLA to continue to keep the Family of ISBDs abreast of current requirements and to pursue further doing so in cooperation with national bibliographic agencies and national and multi-national cataloguing committees. Current priorities and activities Let us turn next to the current priorities and activities of the ISBD Review Group. First, there is the matter of terminology used in the ISBDs in contrast to that used in FRBR, which has raised

27

http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.htm http://www.ddb.de/news/pdf/code_comp_2003_europe_2.pdf and http://www.loc.gov/loc/ifla/imeicc/source/code-comparisons_final-summary.pdf 28

60

the question as to whether such terms as „work,” „expression,” „manifestation,” and „item” should be introduced in place of such terms as „publication.” On the one hand, such changes would be a logical extension of the Review Group’s charge to implement FRBR to the largest extent practicable. One might conclude that since the principles of FRBR are already widely understood and applied, incorporation of its terminology might foster better comprehension of the ISBDs throughout the information community and encourage interoperability with other standards. But, on the other hand, as Patrick Le Boeuf argued at the Frankfurt IME ICC in his paper on „Brave new FRBR world: „FRBR terminology should not be merely incorporated such as it stands into the ISBDs and cataloguing rules, but [these] should keep their own specific terminology, and provide accurate definitions showing how each term in this specific terminology is conceptually related to the FRBR terminology.” The Review Group concluded that it was essential for IFLA to clarify the relationship between the ISBDs and the FRBR model. The group encountered difficulties in trying to achieve that alignment, owing in large part to the fact that the terms used in FRBR were defined in the context of an entity-relationship model conceived at a higher level of abstraction than the specifications for the ISBDs. While the entities defined in the FRBR model are clearly related to the elements forming an ISBD description, they are not necessarily congruent in all respects and the relationships are too complex to be conveyed through a simple substitution of terminology. The Group thus decided that development of a table to detail the relationship of each of the elements specified in the ISBDs to its corresponding entity attribute or relationship as defined in the FRBR model would satisfy the need to make clear that the ISBDs and FRBR themselves enjoy a harmonious relationship. Since Die Deutsche Bibliothek had volunteered to support ISBD maintenance and development as its ICABS29 responsibility, the IFLA Cataloguing Section asked DDB to fund this project. Tom Delsey was recruited on contract to develop the mapping, and the Cataloguing Section’s Standing Committee approved the resulting document entitled „Mapping ISBD Elements to FRBR Entity Attributes and Relationships” on July 9, 2004. The „Mapping” document is available on IFLA’s Web site.30 Nevertheless, the ISBD Review Group did decide to introduce some changes in terminology, beginning with the recently revised ISBD(G). Among them is the use of the term „resource” rather than „item” or „publication.” „Resource” is given a specific definition in 0.2 of the ISBD(G). The use of the former term „item” is different from the term „item” as used in FRBR, but it is not difficult to confuse them. This led to the decision to use „resource.” This decision is consistent with that of the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR, which is also moving ahead with „resource” as the general term. In another area of effort, the ISBD Review Group has been attempting to provide improved guidance regarding the use of the ISBDs for bibliographic description of publications in multiple formats, for example, an e-book or serially issued maps. Recognizing the increasing incidence of resources published in more than one physical medium, and the challenges that these publications pose for bibliographic control, the Review Group appointed a task force charged to investigate three topics in particular: (1) use of multiple ISBDs and use of multiple general material designations [GMDs], (2) the order in which elements for multiple formats should be treated, and (3) the number of bibliographic records to be created for multiple versions.

29 30

IFLA-CDNAL Alliance for Bibliographic Standards http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/pubs/ISBD-FRBR-mappingFinal.pdf

61

The Review Group discussed these issues at its 2003 meeting in Berlin and reached the conclusion that the ISBDs should urge national bibliographic agencies and libraries participating in networks to create separate bibliographic descriptions for works issued in multiple formats. This practice would facilitate record exchange, one of the basic purposes of the ISBDs. Other libraries would be authorized to select a single-record approach when they wish. This recommendation in effect addressed a recommendation emanating from Working Group 4 at the Frankfurt IME ICC. The Review Group also discussed the use of multiple GMDs, deciding to postpone a decision on the matter until broader issues could be identified and evaluated. As a result of these discussions, the Review Group set up a Material Designation Study Group, to develop an outline of problems and issues, taking into account relevant recommendation from IME ICC Working Group 5, which studied closely related issues and rendered useful recommendations. Also, the Material Designation Study Group will consider relevant developments arising from revision of AACR. With Lynne Howarth as chair, the Material Designations Study Group began discussions on two issues that had been identified for further work during the IFLA WLIC 2005 conference in Oslo, namely: • placement of the general material designation [GMD] • identification, clarification, and definition of content and nomenclature of the GMD, area 3, area 5, and area 7. It had become clear that the Study Group work on terminology and nomenclature would need to parallel and complement the work of the Study Group on the Future Directions of the ISBDs (to be discussed next) as it prepares, first, the harmonized text, and, subsequently, the consolidated ISBD. The Study Group decided that, as individual areas of the harmonized text are completed, it will examine and evaluate terminology used currently in the authorized ISBDs and make recommendations for the content and terminology to be used in the GMD, and areas 3, 5, and 7 as appropriate in the proposed consolidated ISBD. Having addressed the terminology/nomenclature issue, the Study Group then turned its attention to problems associated with where to place or locate within the record the general material designation. During its meeting last year in Buenos Aires, the Group had agreed on the importance and primacy of the GMD as an „early warning device” for catalogue users. Consequently, the Study Group focused its discussion on consideration of a separate, unique ISBD area for the GMD. During its Oslo meeting, the Study Group remained sensitive to the implications of a socalled „area 0” for record formats, vendor software, and OPAC/WebPAC displays. Nonetheless, after thoughtful and wide-ranging discussion, it formalized a recommendation that the ISBD Review Group approved at Oslo, as follows. The Study Group put forward the following statement, which was approved by the Review Group at its August 18th meeting in Oslo: „Recognizing the ongoing difficulties with the current optionality, terminology, and location/placement of the general material designation [GMD], and anticipating that the Future Directions Study Group may be working towards producing a consolidated ISBD for which a Document Type Definition (DTD) can then be developed, the Material Designation Study Group proposes the creation of a separate, unique, high level component (not a numbered ISBD area) – a „content/carrier” or „content/medium” designation that would be mandatory – i.e., not optional as with the current GMD – for recording in bibliographic records.”

62

„The Material Designation Study Group emphasizes that this component is independent of system displays – that is, different systems can display the recorded content of the „content/carrier” or „content/medium” designation as each system vendor or client institution determines appropriate, and particularly if the component is a part of the DTD that a style sheet will interpret for display (or not, as a library and/or system vendor determines).” The Study Group identified several benefits that would derive from this proposal, including: • a separate, unique, distinct component makes explicit important information regarding the content and medium of a resource • as the order and location of the component is not specified (DTD elements can be ordered according to style sheet specifications), there is flexibility as to how the „content/carrier” (or „content/medium”) information displays • creation of a unique component, along with specification of its content, will help to focus the content of area 3 (i.e., truly unique/exceptional material), area 5, and, to some extent, area 7. Thus, terminology within each element will be more precise and distinct, addressing current problems with information overlap across related areas 3 • a separate component, rather than a named and ordered area within the current ISBD framework, may encourage rethinking of the numbering, naming, defining, and ordering of data elements for the future consolidated ISBD. Having determined a unique place for designating content/carrier, or content/medium, the Study Group can now focus on what information to embed within that component (GMD), as well as within areas 3, 5, and 7. The Material Designation Study Group will work closely with the Future Directions Study Group, and will also liaise with the JSC appointed GMD/SMD Working Group whose initial report is expected shortly. Tom Delsey, editor of Resource Description and Access (RDA) will be consulted as appropriate or required for „sorting,” clarifying, and defining terminology as is evolves throughout the process. To address another area of interest, the Review Group in 2002 established the ISBD Series Study Group. This effort reflected concerns that some inconsistencies and ambiguities appear to have developed regarding the rules for recording information in Area 6 for Series and related information presented in Area 7 for Notes. Taking into account relevant prescriptions from AACR2 and the ISSN Guidelines, this study group pursued three objectives: • to clarify the purpose of area 6 and its relation with area 1 in ISBD(CR) and ISSN: identification or transcription; • to verify the compatibility of sources of information recommended or prescribed in all ISBDs for area 6 and for area 1 in ISBD(CR) and ISSN, and • to propose a common phrasing for area 6 in all ISBDs. After circulation of discussion papers that made clear the complexity of the issues under investigation, the Group agreed that through all the ISBDs, Area 6 is mainly for transcription of data from the item being catalogued, and less for identification, and that obvious typographical errors should not be corrected. Meanwhile, the Study Group is also investigating problems related to sources of information for Area 6, taking into consideration the great variety of publication practices throughout the world in laying out bibliographic information regarding series and sub-series and inconsistent practices among national bibliographic agencies in treating such information. For example, some cataloguing agencies establish only main series, while others establish separate records for main series and sub-series, depending on the distinctive title of the sub-series, or of the existence of numbering. Another issue considered related to

63

differences in prescribed sources, with the SG preferring, in the case of multi-volume monographs, to give priority to the title page for the series when present. On another front, just as the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR is undertaking a strategic reexamination of the organization and presentation of AACR/RDA, the Review Group decided that it too should consider the possibility of combining the ISBDs into a single document. Currently there are seven specialized ISBDs, plus the General ISBD. These ISBDs have been revised and published at various times, with no method for incorporating changes made in newer texts that affect all the ISBDs into the older texts. For example, when it was decided to incorporate decisions on what data elements should remain mandatory into the ISBDs based on those required in the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, these changes were incorporated into the ISBD(M) and the ISBD(CR) that were issued in 2002, although they applied to all of the ISBDs. It was therefore decided in 2003 to set up a Study Group to determine the feasibility of consolidating the ISBDs, merging the stipulations that applied to all resources and providing for additional stipulations for resources that needed them. The SG decided that consolidation is feasible and began its work. It developed the following Objective and Principles. The Objectives are as follows: • To prepare a consolidated, updated ISBD from the specialized ISBDs in order to meet the needs of cataloguers and users of bibliographic information. • To provide consistent stipulations for description of all types of resources to the extent that uniformity is possible, and specific stipulations for specific types of resources as required to describe those resources. The Principles include: • The primary purpose of the ISBD is to provide the stipulations for compatible descriptive cataloguing worldwide in order to aid the international exchange of bibliographic records between national bibliographic agencies and throughout the international library and information community (e.g., producers, publishers). • The elements needed to identify a resource uniquely must be specified. • National bibliographic agencies and national bibliographies will be addressed. This will also provide stipulations needed for university and other research collections. • Sufficient descriptive information to enable access and retrieval and use of the resource must be provided. • The core set of elements of information rather than the display or use of those elements in a specific automated system will provide the focus. • Cost effective practices must be considered. With Dorothy McGarry as chair, this Study Group met in April 2005. Before this meeting, there had been agreement on the feasibility of a consolidated ISBD. The Deutsche Bibliothek, which sponsored the meeting, had arranged to have matrices of each area prepared to collocate the same areas from each ISBD. Working from that basis, the SG members had refined the matrices to collocate elements within the areas from all of the ISBDs. Agreement was reached on the general outline to be followed for each area. In addition, it was decided to recommend that: • the structure should be changed; • present stipulations should fit into the new structure;

64

• • • •

some changes will be made due to the need to generalize wording; the GMD should be moved from after the title proper to another location; published (validated) versions will be used as the basis on which to work at the first stage; changes to stipulations can be made at a later stage.

Following up on this meeting, the Study Group held two productive meetings during the IFLA Oslo conference. It decided on a timeline for preparing a full proposal for harmonization of the published ISBDs, with comments for suggestions for updates and changes considered necessary for cataloguing at the present time. Another meeting of the Study Group membership is planned for early April 2006 at the DDB. The current work plan and time-line are as follows: The Study Group will prepare a merged text for the ISBDs as they were published. This text will be presented, side-by-side with a column containing suggestions to the ISBD Review Group for changes from the published stipulations in addition to those made during the merger of the individual texts. Rrimary problems and suggestions will be highlighted for the Review Group to consider. By the end of December, this phase should be completed. As mentioned, in Oslo the Review Group decided that further work on ISBD(ER) and ISBD(CM) should be postponed until summer 2006 in order to ensure that the Future Directions SG is able to focus on its initial task of harmonizing the existing, validated ISBDs and work on updating stipulations. However, the Future Directions Study Group will take into account provisions of the drafts of ISBD(ER) and ISBD(CM) during this phase of its work. The chair will also contact the chair of the International Association of Music Libraries ISBD group for updates that will be needed for the music aspects of the ISBDs. Next, the Study Group will work on the stipulations, taking into consideration responses from Review Group members, in order to have a text ready for the spring 2006 meeting in Frankfurt. Problems left unresolved can be worked out there. The resulting text will be sent to the Review Group in June or July 2006 for a full discussion in Seoul at the IFLA conference. Following that meeting, the Study Group will revise the text and prepare a draft version for worldwide review in September-November 2006. Taking into account the responses received in that review, the Study Group will forward a recommended text to the Review Group for approval. In early 2007, the text will go to the Cataloguing Section Standing Committee for balloting. Surveys comparing existing national and multinational cataloguing codes taken in preparation for these meetings of experts on an international cataloguing code have demonstrated conclusively that the ISBDs are used extensively as the basis for bibliographic description and usually with very little modification.31 The Review Group is prepared to work with the authors of these national cataloguing codes whenever there are concerns that we might address by way of improving the ISBDs. In particular, we have established an effective working relationship with the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR on matters of mutual interest. These collaborations as well as all the work that has gone into the development and maintenance of the ISBDs and the energy currently devoted to projects under way or in planning have depended mostly on the efforts of individual experts. I would like to close these remarks by expressing appreciation to these dedicated professionals for their many contributions to the advancement of the ISBD programme, which even today continues to represent one of IFLA’s premier accomplishments in the area of cataloguing. 31

http://www.ddb.de/news/pdf/code_comp_2003_europe_2.pdf

65

‫ﻣﺎورو‪ ،‬ﺟﻴﻮرﻳﻨﻲ ﻋﻦ ﺑﻴﺮوم‪ ،‬ﺟﻮن د‪ .‬ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ إﻓﻼ ﻟﻠﺘﻘﻨﻴﻦ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ ﻟﻠﻮﺻﻒ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﺟﻮن دي ﺑﻴﺮوم‬ ‫ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ اﻟﻜﻮﻧﺠﺮس‬ ‫رﺋﻴﺲ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﺗﺪوب‬ ‫اﺳﻤﺤﻮا ﻟﻲ أن أﺑﺪأ ﺑﺈﻟﻘﺎء ﻧﻈﺮة ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﺪاﻳﺎت ﺗﺪوب واﻟﻐﺮض ﻣﻨﻪ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻳﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﻣﻔﻬﻮم اﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﻦ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ ﻟﻠﻮﺻﻒ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻲ – اﻟﺬي ﺑﻠﻎ ﻗﺮاﺑﺔ ‪ 35‬ﻋﺎﻣﺎ – ﻣﻦ أﻧﺠﺢ ﺟﻬﻮد اﻹﻓﻼ ﻟﻠﺘﺸﺠﻴﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻘﻨﻴﻦ‬ ‫اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ‪ .‬وﻣﻦ أﺣﺪ اﻷﺳﺒﺎب اﻟﺘﻲ ﺟﻌﻠﺖ ﺗﺪوب ﻳﺤﺘﻔﻆ ﺑﻬﺬﻩ اﻷهﻤﻴﺔ ﻃﻮال هﺬﻩ اﻟﻔﺘﺮة هﻮ اﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﻟﻠﻘﻮى اﻟﺘﻲ ﺳﺎﻋﺪت‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻴﺎﻣﻪ ﻣﻨﺬ اﻟﻠﺤﻈﺎت اﻷوﻟﻰ‪ .‬ﺗﺘﻤﺜﻞ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻘﻮى ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎت واﻟﻔﺮص اﻟﻤﺘﺼﺎﻋﺪة ﻣﻦ ﺟﺮاء ﻣﻴﻜﻨﺔ اﻟﻀﺒﻂ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻲ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻓﻀﻼ ﻋﻦ اﻟﺤﺎﺟﺔ اﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎدﻳﺔ ﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﺔ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ‪ .‬ﺣﻴﺚ أن ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺗﻘﻨﻴﻦ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻮﺻﻔﻴﺔ ﺗﻌﺪ ﺑﻤﺜﺎﺑﺔ ﺿﺮورة اﻗﺘﺼﺎدﻳﺔ وﺗﻘﻨﻴﺔ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻹﻧﺸﺎء وﺗﺤﻮﻳﻞ واﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﻘﺮوءة ﺁﻟﻴﺎ‪ .‬وﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ أﺧﺮى آﺎﻧﺖ اﻟﻨﻴﺔ ﻣﻨﻌﻘﺪة ﻋﻠﻰ أن ﻳﺨﺪم ﺗﺪوب‬ ‫آﻤﻜﻮن أﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ اﻹﻓﻼ اﻟﺨﺎص ﺑﺎﻟﻀﺒﻂ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻤﻲ‪ ،‬اﻟﻔﻜﺮة اﻟﺘﻲ ﻋﺒﺮ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ دوروﺛﻲ أﻧﺪرﺳﻮن ﺑﻘﻮﻟﻪ‪„ :‬‬ ‫إﺗﺎﺣﺔ اﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ اﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻣﻘﺒﻮل دوﻟﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﺠﻤﻴﻊ اﻟﻤﻄﺒﻮﻋﺎت‪ ،‬اﻟﺼﺎدرة ﻓﻲ آﻞ اﻟﺪول‪“.‬‬ ‫هﻨﺎك ﺛﻼﺛﺔ أﻏﺮاض أﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﺗﺪوب‪ :‬اﻷول – واﻷآﺜﺮ أهﻤﻴﺔ – ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ إﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺗﺒﺎدل اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت ﻣﻦ ﻣﺼﺎدر ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫واﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ هﻮ اﻟﻤﺴﺎﻋﺪة ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت ﻋﺒﺮ اﻟﺤﻮاﺟﺰ اﻟﻠﻐﻮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺤﻴﺚ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﻟﻠﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺘﻲ أﻋﺪت ﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﻲ ﻟﻐﺔ ﻣﺎ أن‬ ‫ﻳﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪون ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺛﻮن ﻟﻐﺎت أﺧﺮى‪ .‬واﻟﻐﺮض اﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ هﻮ ﺗﻴﺴﻴﺮ ﺗﺤﻮﻳﻞ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ إﻟﻰ ﺷﻜﻞ إﻟﻜﺘﺮوﻧﻲ‪.‬‬ ‫آﺎﻧﺖ أول ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت اﻟﺘﻲ ﻧﺸﺮت اﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﻦ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ ﻟﻠﻮﺻﻒ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﻨﻔﺮدات اﻟﻤﻄﺒﻮﻋﺔ )‪ ISBD (M‬واﻟﺬي ﻇﻬﺮ ﻋﺎم‬ ‫‪ .1971‬وﺗﺒﻌﻬﺎ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت أﺧﺮى ﻟﻠﺪورﻳﺎت‪ ،‬واﻟﻤﻮاد ﻏﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﻄﺒﻮﻋﺔ‪ ،‬واﻟﻤﻮاد اﻟﺨﺮاﺋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬واﻟﻜﺘﺐ اﻟﻨﺎدرة‪ ،‬واﻟﻤﻮﺳﻴﻘﻰ اﻟﻤﻄﺒﻮﻋﺔ‪،‬‬ ‫وﺣﺪﻳﺜﺎ اﻟﻤﺼﺎدر اﻹﻟﻜﺘﺮوﻧﻴﺔ‪ .‬وﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻄﺒﻮﻋﺎت ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮى اﻟﻤﻘﺎﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﺻﺪر أﻳﻀﺎ إرﺷﺎدات ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﺗﺪوب ﻓﻲ وﺻﻒ‬ ‫اﻷﺟﺰاء اﻟﻤﻜﻮﻧﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﻤﻜﻦ اﻹﻃﻼع ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ إﺻﺪارات ﺗﺪوب ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ اﻹﻓﻼ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻹﻧﺘﺮﻧﺖ ‪IFLANET‬؛ وﻋﻠﻰ اﻷﻗﻞ ﻳﺘﻢ‬ ‫إﺗﺎﺣﺔ أﺣﺪث اﻹﺻﺪارات ﻣﺠﺎﻧﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ HTML‬وﺷﻜﻞ ‪ .32PDF‬وﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻇﻬﺮت اﻟﺤﺎﺟﺔ إﻟﻰ إﻃﺎر ﻋﺎم ﺗﺘﻮاﻓﻖ ﻣﻌﻪ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ‬ ‫إﺻﺪارات ﺗﺪوب‪ ،‬ﺗﻢ إﺻﺪار ﺗﺪوب )ﻋﺎم( )‪ISBD(G‬؛ واﻟﺬي ﻳﻌﺪ أداة اﻟﺘﻨﺎﻏﻢ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ إﺻﺪارات ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت اﻷﺧﺮى‪.‬‬ ‫ﻣﺮاﺣﻞ إﺻﺪار ﻃﺒﻌﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪة أو ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺪوب‬ ‫ﺗﻌﺘﺒﺮ اﻹﺟﺮاءات ﺿﺮورﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ أﻋﻤﺎل اﻟﻤﻌﺎﻳﺮة ﻟﻀﻤﺎن إﺗﺒﺎع ﺧﻄﻮات إﺻﺪار ﻣﻌﻴﺎر ﺟﺪﻳﺪ أو ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺘﻪ ﺑﺜﺒﺎت‪ .‬وﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ‬ ‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺆﺗﻤﺮ اﻹﻓﻼ ﻋﺎم ‪ 1989‬ﺗﺒﻨﺖ ﻟﺠﻨﺔ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ إﺟﺮاءات ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﻟﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮ وﺗﻮزﻳﻊ أي ﻃﺒﻌﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪة أو ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺪوب‪.‬‬ ‫وﻓﻲ ﻋﺎم ‪ 2002‬ﺗﻢ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺚ هﺬﻩ اﻹﺟﺮاءات ﻟﻺﻓﺎدة ﻣﻦ ﻓﺮﺻﺔ اﻟﻨﺸﺮ اﻻﻟﻜﺘﺮوﻧﻲ ﻟﻠﻨﺼﻮص وأﻳﻀﺎ ﻟﻺﺳﺮاع ﺑﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻟﺒﺮﻳﺪ اﻻﻟﻜﺘﺮوﻧﻲ ﻟﻺﻋﻼن ﻋﻦ إﺗﺎﺣﺔ اﻟﻨﺼﻮص ﻟﻠﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ هﺬا ﻓﻀﻼ ﻋﻦ اﻟﺘﻤﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺤﺼﻮل ﻋﻠﻰ اﻻﻗﺘﺮاﺣﺎت‬ ‫واﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻘﺎت ﺑﺴﺮﻋﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻓﻲ اﻷﺻﻞ آﺎن ﻳﻌﺘﻘﺪ أن آﻞ ﺗﺪوب ﻳﺠﺐ أن ﻳﺨﻀﻊ ﻟﻠﺘﺤﺪﻳﺚ آﻞ ﺧﻤﺲ ﺳﻨﻮات وﻟﻜﻦ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻮاﻗﻊ آﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﺘﻢ اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﺒﺮز‬ ‫اﻟﺤﺎﺟﺔ ﻹدﺧﺎل ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮات أو ﻇﻬﻮر ﻣﻮاد أو أوﻋﻴﺔ ﻣﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت ﺟﺪﻳﺪة ﻣﺜﻞ إﺻﺪار ﺗﺪوب )اﻟﻤﺼﺎدر اﻻﻟﻜﺘﺮوﻧﻴﺔ( وأﻳﻀﺎ ﺗﺪوب‬ ‫ﻟﻠﻤﺼﺎدر اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺮة‪.‬‬ ‫هﻨﺎك ﺧﻤﺲ ﻣﺮاﺣﻞ ﻹﺻﺪار ﻃﺒﻌﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪة أو ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺪوب‬ ‫‪ – 1‬إﻋﺪاد اﻟﻨﺺ اﻟﻤﺒﺪﺋﻲ‪ .‬ﺧﻼل هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺗﺘﻜﻮن ﻣﻦ ﺧﺒﺮاء اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ ﻣﻦ داﺧﻞ وﺧﺎرج اﻹﻓﻼ‬ ‫وﻏﺎﻟﺒﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﻣﺤﺮر ﻹﻋﺪاد اﻟﻨﺺ اﺳﺘﻨﺎدا ﻟﻘﺮارات ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‪.‬‬

‫‪32‬‬

‫‪http://www.ifla.org/VI/3/nd1/isbdlist.htm‬‬

‫‪66‬‬

‫‪ – 2‬اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻤﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺑﻤﺠﺮد اآﺘﻤﺎل اﻟﻨﺺ اﻟﻤﺒﺪﺋﻲ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﺟﺎهﺰا ﻟﻠﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻤﻴﺔ وﻓﻲ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﻳﺘﻢ إرﺳﺎل اﻟﻨﺺ‬ ‫ﻟﻮﺿﻌﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ إﻓﻼ ﻧﺖ ‪ IFLANET‬وﺑﻌﺪ ذﻟﻚ ﻳﺘﻢ اﻹﻋﻼن ﻓﻲ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ إﻓﻼ اﻟﺒﺮﻳﺪﻳﺔ ﻋﺎدة ﺗﺴﺘﻐﺮق اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﺷﻬﺮﻳﻦ إذا آﺎﻧﺖ‬ ‫ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﺗﺪوب‪ ،‬وﺛﻼﺛﺔ أﺷﻬﺮ إذا آﺎن اﻟﻨﺺ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ آﻠﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ – 3‬اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ اﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺗﺆﺧﺬ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻘﺎت ﻓﻲ اﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎر وﻃﺒﻘﺎ ﻟﻘﺮارات اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻳﻘﻮم اﻟﻤﺤﺮر ﺑﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ اﻟﻨﺺ اﻟﻤﺒﺪﺋﻲ وﻓﻲ‬ ‫هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﻳﺘﻢ وﺿﻊ أﻣﺜﻠﺔ ﺑﻠﻐﺎت ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ داﺧﻞ اﻟﻨﺺ واﻟﻤﻼﺣﻖ وإﻋﺪاد اﻟﻜﺸﺎف وﻋﻨﺪ اﻻﻧﺘﻬﺎء ﻣﻦ اﻟﻨﺺ ﺗﻘﻮم ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻋﻤﻞ‬ ‫ﺗﺪوب ﺑﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺘﻪ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ أﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﻟﻀﻤﻦ ﺗﻮاﻓﻘﻪ ﻣﻊ ﺗﺪوب )ﻋﺎم(‪.‬‬ ‫‪ – 4‬اﻟﺘﺼﻮﻳﺖ‪ .‬ﺗﺮﺳﻞ اﻟﻨﺴﺨﺔ اﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻃﺒﻌﺔ ﺗﺪوب اﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪة أو اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ إﻟﻰ اﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ اﻟﺪاﺋﻤﺔ ﻟﻘﺴﻢ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ وهﻨﺎك ﺧﻴﺎران‬ ‫ﻓﻘﻂ ﻟﻠﺘﺼﻮﻳﺖ‪ :‬اﻟﻤﻮاﻓﻘﺔ أو اﻟﺮﻓﺾ‪ .‬وﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ذﻟﻚ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻜﻮن هﻨﺎك ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﻤﻼﺣﻈﺎت اﻟﺘﺤﺮﻳﺮﻳﺔ‪ .‬واﻷﺻﻮات اﻟﺘﻲ ﻻ ﻳﺘﻢ‬ ‫اﻟﺤﺼﻮل ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ إﻏﻼق اﻟﺘﺼﻮﻳﺖ ﺗﻌﺘﺒﺮ أﺻﻮات ﻣﻮاﻓﻘﺔ‪ .‬وﻳﺴﻤﺢ ﺑﺸﻬﺮ واﺣﺪ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻟﻬﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﺮﺣﻠﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ – 5‬اﻟﻨﺸﺮ وورﺷﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‪ .‬إذا آﺎﻧﺖ اﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ اﻟﻤﻮاﻓﻘﺔ آﻤﺎ هﻮ ﻣﺘﻮﻗﻊ ﻳﺘﻢ إرﺳﺎل اﻟﻨﺺ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ‪ .‬واﻟﻴﻮم ﻳﺘﻢ إﺻﺪار اﻟﻨﺺ اﻟﻜﺘﺮوﻧﻴﺎ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ أن اﻟﻨﺺ اﻻﻟﻜﺘﺮوﻧﻲ ﻗﺪ ﻳﺘﺄﺧﺮ ﺑﻨﺎءا ﻋﻠﻰ ﻃﻠﺐ اﻟﻨﺎﺷﺮ إذا آﺎن اﻟﻨﺺ ﺳﻮف ﻳﻨﺸﺮ أﻳﻀﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻣﻄﺒﻮع‪.‬‬ ‫وآﺨﻄﻮة أﺧﻴﺮة ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ إﺻﺪار ﻃﺒﻌﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪة ﻣﻦ ﺗﺪوب أو اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ اﻟﺸﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﻨﻈﻴﻢ ورﺷﺔ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺰاﻣﻦ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺆﺗﻤﺮ اﻹﻓﻼ‬ ‫ﻟﺸﺮح اﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻟﻄﺒﻌﺔ اﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪة‪.‬‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ اﻧﻪ آﻤﺎ ذآﺮﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ أن ﺑﻌﺾ إﺻﺪارات ﺗﺪوب ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮهﺎ أو ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺘﻬﺎ ﻻﺣﺘﻴﺎﺟﺎت ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ‪ ،‬هﻨﺎك ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺔ‬ ‫ﺷﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﻟﺠﻤﻴﻊ إﺻﺪارات ﻋﺎﺋﻠﺔ ﺗﺪوب وﻳﺘﻢ هﺬا اﻟﻨﻮع ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻜﻮن هﻨﺎك ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮات ﺗﺆﺛﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ اﻹﺻﺪارات‪.‬‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺸﺮوع اﻷول ﻟﻠﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ اﻟﺸﺎﻣﻠﺔ‬ ‫ﻧﺘﺠﺖ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﺑﻌﺪ إﻧﺸﺎء ﻟﺠﻨﺔ ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﺗﺪوب اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻘﺎﺑﻠﺖ ﻷول ﻣﺮة ﻓﻲ أﻏﺴﻄﺲ ﻋﺎم ‪ 1981‬وﻗﺎﻣﺖ اﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﺑﻮﺿﻊ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ‬ ‫أهﺪاف أﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺸﺮوع اﻷول ﻟﻠﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ اﻟﺸﺎﻣﻠﺔ‪:‬‬ ‫‪ .1‬ﺗﻨﺎﻏﻢ اﻹﺻﺪارات ﻟﻀﻤﺎن اﻟﺜﺒﺎت‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .2‬ﺗﺤﺴﻴﻦ اﻷﻣﺜﻠﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .3‬ﺟﻌﻞ اﻹﺻﺪارات أآﺜﺮ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻘﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻔﻬﺮﺳﻴﻦ اﻟﻠﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﻌﻤﻠﻮن ﻣﻊ ﻣﻮاد ﻣﻨﺸﻮرة ﺑﻠﻐﺎت ﻏﻴﺮ روﻣﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﻟﺬﻟﻚ هﻨﺎك هﺪﻓﻴﻦ ﺁﺧﺮﻳﻦ‪:‬‬ ‫‪ .1‬ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺔ اﺳﺘﺨﺪام ﻋﻼﻣﺔ اﻟﺘﺴﺎوي ﺣﻴﺚ أن اﺳﺘﺨﺪاﻣﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻮﺻﻒ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻲ آﺎن ﻣﺼﺪرا ﻟﺒﻌﺾ اﻟﺘﻨﺎﻗﺾ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .2‬إزاﻟﺔ ﺗﻐﻄﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﻮاد اﻟﻤﻘﺮوءة ﺁﻟﻴﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺪوب ﻟﻠﻤﻮاد ﻏﻴﺮ اﻟﻜﺘﺐ‪.‬‬ ‫وﺑﻨﻬﺎﻳﺔ اﻟﻌﻘﺪ ﺗﻢ إﻋﺎدة ﻧﺸﺮ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت آﻄﺒﻌﺎت ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﻓﻀﻼ ﻋﻦ إﺻﺪار ﺗﺪوب ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻞ ﻟﻤﻠﻔﺎت اﻟﻜﻮﻣﺒﻴﻮﺗﺮ واﻟﺬي – ﻧﻈﺮا‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺘﻄﻮرات اﻟﺘﻜﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ اﻟﺴﺮﻳﻌﺔ – ﺻﺪر ﺑﺪﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺪوب ﻟﻠﻤﺼﺎدر اﻹﻟﻜﺘﺮوﻧﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺸﺮوع اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ اﻟﺸﺎﻣﻠﺔ‬ ‫ﻓﻲ أواﺋﻞ اﻟﺘﺴﻌﻴﻨﻴﺎت ﺗﻢ ﺗﺸﻜﻴﻞ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ دراﺳﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎت اﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ﺑﻮاﺳﻄﺔ ﻟﺠﻨﺔ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ وﺑﺎﻟﺘﻌﺎون‬ ‫ﻣﻊ ﻟﺠﺎن أﺧﺮى داﺧﻞ اﻹﻓﻼ وآﺎن أﺣﺪ اﻟﺘﻮاﺑﻊ ﻟﺘﻜﻮﻳﻦ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻗﺮار إﻳﻘﺎف أﻏﻠﺐ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎت ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت ﺣﺘﻰ‬ ‫ﺗﺴﺘﻜﻤﻞ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪ FRBR‬اﻟﺘﻜﻠﻴﻒ اﻟﺨﺎص ﺑﺎﻗﺘﺮاح اﻟﻤﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎت اﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﻴﺔ اﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻌﺪهﺎ اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺎت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ‪ .‬وﻧﺘﺞ ﻋﻦ هﺬا اﻟﻘﺮار اﻟﺘﻮﻗﻒ اﻟﺪاﺋﻢ ﻟﻤﺸﺮوع آﺎن ﻳﺴﺘﻬﺪف ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻜﻮﻧﺎت ﺗﺪوب )‪ (M‬اﻟﻤﻮﺟﺰ ﻷﻧﻪ آﺎن ﻳﺘﻮﻗﻊ أن ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ‬ ‫‪ FRBR‬ﺳﻮف ﺗﺆﺛﺮ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻓﻲ ﻋﺎم ‪ 1998‬ﻗﺎﻣﺖ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ دراﺳﺔ ‪ FRBR‬ﺑﻨﺸﺮ اﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ اﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻲ‪ 33‬وﺗﻢ إﻋﺎدة ﺗﺸﻜﻴﻞ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﺗﺪوب ﻟﻠﺒﺪء ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﺷﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﻟﺴﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت ﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻣﻘﺘﺮﺣﺎت ‪ FRBR‬اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮى اﻷﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ اﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻓﻲ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت ﺗﻢ ﺗﻮﺟﻴﻪ اﻟﺪﻋﻮة ﻟﻠﻬﻴﺌﺎت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ اﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ ﻹﻋﺪاد اﻟﻮﺻﻒ اﻷﺳﺎﺳﻲ اﻟﺬي ﻳﺸﺘﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ‬ ‫اﻹﺟﺒﺎرﻳﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻀﻤﻨﻬﺎ ﺗﺪوب ﺣﺘﻰ ذﻟﻚ اﻟﻮﻗﺖ‪ .‬وﻟﺘﺴﻬﻴﻞ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ هﺬا اﻟﻤﺒﺪأ ﺣﺪدت ﺳﻠﺴﺔ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت اﻟﺼﻔﺔ )اﺧﺘﻴﺎري( ﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ‬ ‫اﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎت اﻟﻐﻴﺮ إﺟﺒﺎرﻳﺔ‪ ،‬وﻣﻦ ﺛﻢ ﺗﻀﻤﻨﺖ اﻟﻤﻬﻤﺔ اﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﻤﺘﺎﺑﻌﺔ اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ اﻟﺸﺎﻣﻠﺔ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻧﻈﺮة دﻗﻴﻘﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺑﻴﺎﻧﺎت‬ ‫ﺗﺪوب اﻟﺘﻲ أﺻﺒﺤﺖ إﺟﺒﺎرﻳﺔ ﻟﻜﻲ ﺗﺤﺪد ﺻﻔﺔ „اﺧﺘﻴﺎرﻳﺔ“ ﻷي ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ اﺧﺘﻴﺎرﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ‪ .FRBR‬أآﻤﻠﺖ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﺗﺪوب‬

‫‪33‬‬

‫‪67‬‬

‫‪http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.htm‬‬

‫اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺛﻼث ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت‪ :‬ﺗﺪوب )‪ (M‬اﻟﻤﻨﻔﺮدات‪ ،‬ﺗﺪوب اﻟﻤﺼﺎدر اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺮة )‪ ،(CR‬وﺗﺪوب )‪ (G‬ﻋﺎم‪ .‬ﺗﻘﻮم ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ‬ ‫ﺣﺎﻟﻴﺎ ﺑﺘﺤﺪﻳﺚ ﺛﻼث ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت أﺧﺮى‪ :‬ﺗﺪوب ﻟﻠﻤﻮاد اﻟﺨﺮاﺋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬وﺗﺪوب ﻟﻠﻜﺘﺐ اﻟﻘﺪﻳﻤﺔ‪ ،‬وﺗﺪوب ﻟﻠﻤﺼﺎدر اﻹﻟﻜﺘﺮوﻧﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ذﻟﻚ‪ ،‬وﺑﺎﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎء ﺗﺪوب )‪ ،(A‬ﺗﻢ إﻳﻘﺎف هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﺸﺎرﻳﻊ ﻟﻤﺪة ﺳﻨﺔ ﺣﺘﻰ إﺻﺪار اﻟﻨﺴﺨﺔ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻌﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت‬ ‫وهﻮ اﻟﻤﺸﺮوع اﻟﺬي ﺳﻮف أﻧﺎﻗﺸﻪ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻗﻠﻴﻞ‪.‬‬ ‫وهﻜﺬا ﻷآﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﻋﻘﻮد أﻧﺘﺞ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﺗﺪوب ﻓﻲ اﻹﻓﻼ ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ ﻟﺘﻤﺜﻴﻞ اﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ﻟﺠﻤﻴﻊ أﻧﻮاع ﻣﻮاد اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺎت‬ ‫وﺻﻴﺎﻧﺔ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺎت ﺗﻢ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت رﺳﻤﻴﺎ إﻟﻰ اﻟﻠﻐﺎت‪ :‬اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﻜﺎﺗﻼﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﺼﻴﻨﻴﺔ‪،‬‬ ‫اﻟﻜﺮواﺗﻴﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﺘﺸﻴﻜﻴﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﺪﻧﻤﺮآﻴﺔ‪ ،‬اﻹﺳﺘﻮﻧﻴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﻔﻨﻠﻨﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬اﻷﻟﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﺠﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬اﻹﻳﻄﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﻴﺎﺑﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﻼﺗﻔﻴﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﻠﻴﺘﻮاﻧﻴﺔ‪،‬‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻘﺪوﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﺒﺮﺗﻐﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﺮوﻣﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﺼﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﺴﻠﻮﻓﺎآﻴﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﺴﻠﻮﻓﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬اﻷﺳﺒﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬واﻷوآﺮاﻧﻴﺔ‪ .‬وﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﺳﺎﻋﺪت ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت‬ ‫ﻟﺠﺎن اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺚ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪهﺎ ﻟﺘﺸﺠﻴﻊ اﻟﻤﻤﺎرﺳﺎت اﻟﻤﻘﺒﻮﻟﺔ دوﻟﻴﺎ‪ ،‬وهﻮ اﻷﻣﺮ اﻟﺬي ﻟﻮﺣﻆ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺟﻤﻊ ﻣﻤﺎرﺳﺎت‬ ‫اﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ وﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻷﻧﺠﻠﻮ‪-‬أﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ‪ ،‬واﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻢ ﺗﺤﻀﻴﺮهﺎ ﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﺎت ﺧﺒﺮاء اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ ﻓﻲ ‪ 2003‬و‪ .200434‬وﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﺣﻴﻦ ﻧﺠﺪ أن اﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ ﻻ ﺗﺘﻮاﻓﻖ ﺗﻤﺎﻣﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ ﺗﻔﺎﺻﻴﻞ ﺗﺪوب هﻨﺎك اﻧﻄﺒﺎع ﻋﺎم أن هﻨﺎك ﺗﻨﺎﻏﻢ آﺒﻴﺮ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ وﺑﻴﻦ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻤﺎرﺳﺎت اﻟﻤﻘﺘﺮﺣﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻹﻓﻼ‪.‬‬ ‫وﻧﻈﺮا ﻟﺘﻐﻴﺮ ﺳﻤﺎت اﻟﻨﺸﺮ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻮﻗﺖ اﻟﺤﺎﻟﻲ آﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻟﻠﺒﻴﺌﺔ اﻹﻟﻜﺘﺮوﻧﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﻧﻌﻤﻞ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺗﺰاﻳﺪ اﻻهﺘﻤﺎم ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻴﺘﺎداﺗﺎ ﻟﻀﺒﻂ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺼﺎدر اﻹﻟﻜﺘﺮوﻧﻴﺔ واﻟﻮﺻﻮل إﻟﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈن ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت ﺳﻮف ﺗﺴﺘﻐﻞ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻔﺮص اﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪة ﻟﻠﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺤﺘﻮى هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻮﻣﺔ وآﻴﻔﻴﺔ‬ ‫اﺳﺘﺨﺪاﻣﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻷن أﻏﻠﺐ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ اﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎت هﺬﻩ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت‪ .‬وﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺠﺎﻧﺐ اﻵﺧﺮ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻘﻂ هﻨﺎك أﺣﻮال ﺑﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‬ ‫وﻟﻜﻦ أﻳﻀﺎ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ آﻞ ﻣﻤﺎرﺳﺔ ﺑﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ﻣﻮﺟﻮدة اﻵن ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن ﺗﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﺑﻨﻔﺲ اﻟﻔﺎﺋﺪة اﻵن آﻤﺎ آﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ‪.‬‬ ‫وﻣﻦ هﻨﺎ ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻀﺮوري ﻟﻺﻓﻼ اﻻﺳﺘﻤﺮار ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺤﺎﻓﻈﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻮﻓﺮ اﻟﻤﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎت اﻟﺤﺪﻳﺜﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺎﺋﻠﺔ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت واﻻﺳﺘﻤﺮار ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ذﻟﻚ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻌﺎون ﻣﻊ اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺎت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ اﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ وﻟﺠﺎن اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ واﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫اﻷوﻟﻮﻳﺎت واﻷﻧﺸﻄﺔ اﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ‬ ‫دﻋﻨﺎ اﻵن ﻧﺘﺤﻮل إﻟﻰ اﻷﻧﺸﻄﺔ واﻷوﻟﻮﻳﺎت اﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﺗﺪوب‪ .‬أوﻻ هﻨﺎك ﻗﻀﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻘﺎرﻧﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ ‪ FRBR‬واﻟﺘﻲ أﺛﺎرت اﻟﺘﺴﺎؤل ﻋﻤﺎ إذا آﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت ﻣﺜﻞ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‬ ‫‪ ، work‬اﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ ‪ ، expression‬اﻟﻜﻴﺎن اﻟﻤﺎدي ‪ ، manifestation‬واﻟﻮﻋﺎء ‪ item‬ﻳﺠﺐ أن ﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﻮا ﺑﺪﻻ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت‬ ‫ﻣﺜﻞ اﻟﻤﻄﺒﻮع ‪ .publication‬ﻓﻤﻦ أﺣﺪ اﻟﺠﻮاﻧﺐ هﺬﻩ اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮات ﺳﻮف ﺗﻜﻮن اﻣﺘﺪاد ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻲ ﻟﺘﻜﻠﻴﻒ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﺑﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬ ‫‪ FRBR‬ﻷﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﺪى ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻘﻲ ﻣﻤﻜﻦ‪ .‬واﻟﻤﺮء ﻗﺪ ﻳﺴﺘﻨﺘﺞ أﻧﻪ ﻧﻈﺮا ﻷن ﻣﺒﺎدئ ‪ FRBR‬ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﺔ وﻣﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈن اﺳﺘﺨﺪام‬ ‫ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺗﻪ ﻗﺪ ﻳﺸﺠﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻬﻢ أﻓﻀﻞ ﻟﺴﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﺠﺘﻤﻊ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت‪ ،‬وﻳﺸﺠﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻣﻊ ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ أﺧﺮى‪.‬‬ ‫وﻟﻜﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺠﺎﻧﺐ اﻵﺧﺮ آﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﻮل ﺑﺎﺗﺮﻳﻚ ﺑﻴﻮف ﻓﻲ اﺟﺘﻤﺎع ‪ IME ICC‬ﻓﻲ ﻓﺮاﻧﻜﻔﻮرت‪ ،‬واﻟﻮرﻗﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﻗﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﺑﻌﻨﻮان‪„ :‬اﻗﺘﺤﻢ‬ ‫ﻋﺎﻟﻢ ‪ FRBR‬ﺑﺸﺠﺎﻋﺔ“‪„ ،‬ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت ‪ FRBR‬ﻻ ﻳﺠﺐ ﻓﻘﻂ اﺳﺘﺨﺪاﻣﻬﺎ آﻤﺎ هﻲ داﺧﻞ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت وﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ وﻟﻜﻦ‬ ‫ﻳﺠﺐ أن ﺗﺤﺎﻓﻆ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﺎﻧﻴﻬﺎ اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ وﺗﻮﻓﻴﺮ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻔﺎت دﻗﻴﻘﺔ ﺗﺒﻴﻦ آﻴﻒ أن آﻞ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﻣﻦ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﻣﻔﺎهﻴﻤﻴﺎ‬ ‫ﺑﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت ‪“.FRBR‬‬ ‫ﺗﻮﺻﻠﺖ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ إﻟﻰ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻣﻔﺎدهﺎ أن ﻣﻦ اﻟﻀﺮوري ﻟﻺﻓﻼ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت وﻧﻤﻮذج ‪.FRBR‬‬ ‫وﻟﻘﺪ واﺟﻬﺖ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺻﻌﻮﺑﺎت ﻓﻲ ﻣﺤﺎوﻟﺔ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ هﺬا اﻟﺘﻮاﻓﻖ وﻳﺮﺟﻊ ذﻟﻚ ﺑﺪرﺟﺔ آﺒﻴﺮة إﻟﻰ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ أن اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ ‪ FRBR‬ﺗﻢ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻔﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻴﺎق ﻧﻤﻮذج اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎت ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﻜﺎﺋﻨﺎت واﻟﺬي ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﻓﻬﻤﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺴﺘﻮى أﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺘﺠﺮﻳﺪ ﺑﺪﻻ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﻮاﺻﻔﺎت اﻟﻤﻮﺟﻮدة ﻓﻲ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت‪ .‬وﻓﻲ ﺣﻴﻦ أن اﻟﻜﺎﺋﻨﺎت اﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻧﻤﻮذج ‪ FRBR‬ﺗﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﻮﺿﻮح ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺸﻜﻞ‬ ‫اﻟﻮﺻﻒ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺪوب ﻓﻬﻲ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺎﻟﻀﺮورة ﻣﺘﻮاﻓﻘﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ اﻷوﺟﻪ‪ ،‬آﻤﺎ أن اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎت ﻣﻌﻘﺪة ﻟﻠﻐﺎﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل ﺗﺒﺪﻳﻞ‬ ‫ﺑﺴﻴﻂ ﻟﻠﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت وﻣﻦ هﻨﺎ ﻗﺮرت اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ أن ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﺟﺪول ﻳﻮﺿﺢ ﺗﻔﺎﺻﻴﻞ اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ آﻞ اﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ اﻟﻤﻮﺟﻮدة ﻓﻲ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت‬ ‫وﻧﻈﻴﺮﺗﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺺ اﻟﻜﺎﺋﻨﺎت أو اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎت آﻤﺎ ﺗﻢ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻔﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻧﻤﻮذج ‪ FRBR‬ﺳﻮف ﻳﺆدي اﻟﻐﺮض ﻟﺘﻮﺿﻴﺢ أن ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت و‬ ‫‪ FRBR‬ﻳﺘﻮﻓﺮ ﻓﻴﻬﻤﺎ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻏﻤﺔ‪ .‬وﺑﻤﺎ أن اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺔ اﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ اﻷﻟﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻄﻮﻋﺖ ﻟﺪﻋﻢ ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ وﺻﻴﺎﻧﺔ ﺗﺪوب‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﻃﻠﺒﺖ ﻟﺠﻨﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ ﺑﺎﻹﻓﻼ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺔ اﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ اﻷﻟﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺗﻤﻮﻳﻞ هﺬا اﻟﻤﺸﺮوع‪ .35‬وﻗﺪ وﻗﻊ اﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎر ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻮم دﻳﻠﺴﻲ ﻟﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮ اﻟﻤﻀﺎهﺎة‬

‫‪http://www.ddb.de/news/pdf/code_comp_2003_europe_2.pdf 34‬‬ ‫‪http://www.loc.gov/loc/ifla/imeicc/source/code-comparisons_final-summary.pdf‬‬ ‫‪IFLA-CDNAL Alliance for Bibliographic Standards 35‬‬

‫‪68‬‬

‫وواﻓﻘﺖ اﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ اﻟﺪاﺋﻤﺔ ﺑﻘﺴﻢ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ أﻋﺪهﺎ دﻳﻠﺴﻲ ﺑﻌﻨﻮان „ﻣﻀﺎهﺎة ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺗﺪوب ﺑﺨﺼﺎﺋﺺ اﻟﻜﺎﺋﻨﺎت‬ ‫واﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎت ﻓﻲ ‪ “FRBR‬ﻓﻲ ‪ 9‬ﻳﻮﻟﻴﻮ ‪2004‬م وهﺬﻩ اﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘﺔ ﻣﺘﺎﺣﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ اﻹﻓﻼ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻹﻧﺘﺮﻧﺖ‪.36‬‬ ‫وﻣﻊ ذﻟﻚ ﻟﻢ ﺗﻘﺮر ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﺗﺪوب ﺗﻘﺪﻳﻢ ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮات ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت ﺑﺪءا ﻣﻦ ﺗﺪوب )‪ (G‬اﻟﻌﺎم اﻟﺬي ﺗﻢ ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺘﻪ‬ ‫ﻣﺆﺧﺮا‪ .‬وﻣﻦ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ اﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﻣﺼﺪر ‪ resource‬ﺑﺪﻻ ﻣﻦ وﻋﺎء ‪ item‬أو ﻣﻄﺒﻮع ‪ .publication‬وهﻨﺎك ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ‬ ‫ﻣﺨﺼﺺ ﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﻣﺼﺪر ‪ resource‬ﻓﻲ اﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪة رﻗﻢ ‪ 0.2‬ﻓﻲ ﺗﺪوب )‪ (G‬اﻟﻌﺎم‪ .‬اﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺢ اﻵﺧﺮ وﻋﺎء ‪item‬‬ ‫ﻳﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺢ وﻋﺎء ‪ item‬آﻤﺎ ﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪم ﻓﻲ ‪ FRBR‬وﻟﻜﻦ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺼﻌﺐ اﻟﺨﻠﻂ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ‪ .‬وهﺬا ﻳﻘﻮد إﻟﻰ ﻗﺮار اﺳﺘﺨﺪام‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﻣﺼﺪر ‪ .resource‬هﺬا اﻟﻘﺮار ﻳﺘﻤﺎﺷﻰ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺎ اﺗﺨﺬﺗﻪ ﻟﺠﻨﺔ اﻟﺘﻮﺟﻴﻪ اﻟﻤﺸﺘﺮك ﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ‪ ، AACR‬واﻟﺘﻲ أﻳﻀﺎ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫اﺗﺠﺎﻩ اﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﻣﺼﺪر ‪.resource‬‬ ‫وﻣﻦ ﻣﺠﺎﻻت اﻟﺠﻬﻮد ﺣﺎوﻟﺖ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﺗﺪوب ﺗﻮﻓﻴﺮ إرﺷﺎدات ﺟﻴﺪة ﺑﺨﺼﻮص اﺳﺘﺨﺪام ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت ﻓﻲ اﻟﻮﺻﻒ‬ ‫اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﻄﺒﻮﻋﺎت ﻓﻲ أﺷﻜﺎل ﻣﺘﻌﺪدة‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ اﻟﻤﺜﺎل‪ :‬آﺘﺎب إﻟﻜﺘﺮوﻧﻲ‪ ،‬أو ﺧﺮاﺋﻂ ﺗﺼﺪر دورﻳﺎ‪ .‬وﻟﻤﻮاﺟﻬﺔ اﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺎت‬ ‫اﻟﺘﻲ ﻧﺘﺠﺖ ﻋﻦ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻨﻮﻋﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﻄﺒﻮﻋﺎت ﻓﻲ ﻣﺠﺎل اﻟﻀﺒﻂ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻲ‪ ،‬ﻗﺎﻣﺖ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﺑﺘﻜﻮﻳﻦ ﻟﺠﻨﺔ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ‬ ‫ﺗﺒﺤﺚ ﻓﻲ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎت ﺑﺸﻜﻞ دﻗﻴﻖ‪:‬‬ ‫)‪ (1‬اﺳﺘﺨﺪام أرﻗﺎم ﺗﺪﻣﻚ ﻣﺘﻌﺪدة واﺳﺘﺨﺪام ﺗﺄﺷﻴﺮات أوﻋﻴﺔ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ ﻣﺘﻌﺪدة‬ ‫)‪ (2‬اﻟﺘﺮﺗﻴﺐ اﻟﺬي ﻳﺠﺐ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ اﻷﺷﻜﺎل اﻟﻤﺘﻌﺪدة‬ ‫)‪ (3‬ﻋﺪد اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﺠﺐ إﻋﺪادهﺎ ﻟﻺﺻﺪارات اﻟﻤﺘﻌﺪدة‬ ‫ﻗﺎﻣﺖ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﺑﻤﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻘﻀﺎﻳﺎ ﻓﻲ اﺟﺘﻤﺎع ﺑﺮﻟﻴﻦ ‪ 2003‬وﺗﻮﺻﻠﺖ إﻟﻰ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻣﻔﺎدهﺎ أن ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت ﻳﺠﺐ أن ﻳﺤﺚ‬ ‫اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺎت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ اﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ واﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺎت اﻟﻤﺸﺘﺮآﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺷﺒﻜﺎت ﺗﻌﺎوﻧﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ إﻋﺪاد أوﺻﺎف ﺑﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻠﺔ ﻟﻸﻋﻤﺎل اﻟﺘﻲ‬ ‫ﺗﺼﺪر ﻓﻲ أﺷﻜﺎل ﻣﺘﻌﺪدة‪ .‬هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﻤﺎرﺳﺔ ﺳﻮف ﺗﺴﻬﻞ ﺗﺒﺎدل اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت‪ ،‬وهﻮ أﺣﺪ اﻷﻏﺮاض اﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ وﻣﻜﺘﺒﺎت أﺧﺮى ﺳﻮف‬ ‫ﻳﺼﺮح ﻟﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻴﺎر أﺳﻠﻮب اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻟﻮاﺣﺪة إذا أرادت‪ .‬هﺬا اﻻﻗﺘﺮاح ﻓﻲ اﻟﻮاﻗﻊ ﺗﻌﺮض ﻟﻤﻘﺘﺮح ﻗﺪﻣﺘﻪ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﻟﺮاﺑﻌﺔ‬ ‫ﻓﻲ اﺟﺘﻤﺎع ‪ IME ICC‬ﻓﻲ ﻓﺮﻧﻜﻔﻮرت آﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻣﺖ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪام ﺗﺄﺷﻴﺮات ﻣﺘﻌﺪدة ﻋﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﺎء وﻗﺮرت ﺗﺄﺟﻴﻞ‬ ‫اﻟﻘﺮار ﻓﻲ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺣﺘﻰ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ وﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻗﻀﺎﻳﺎ أآﺒﺮ‪ .‬آﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻟﻬﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﻨﺎﻗﺸﺎت ﻗﺎﻣﺖ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﺑﺘﺸﻜﻴﻞ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ‬ ‫دراﺳﺔ ﺗﺄﺷﻴﺮات اﻷوﻋﻴﺔ ﻟﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﻣﺨﻄﻂ ﻟﻠﻤﺸﻜﻼت واﻟﻘﻀﺎﻳﺎ واﺿﻌﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺤﺴﺒﺎن اﻟﻤﻘﺘﺮﺣﺎت ذات اﻟﺼﻠﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‬ ‫اﻟﺨﺎﻣﺴﺔ ﻓﻲ ‪ IME ICC‬واﻟﺘﻲ درﺳﺖ ﺑﻌﻨﺎﻳﺔ اﻟﻘﻀﺎﻳﺎ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ وﻗﺪﻣﺖ ﻣﻘﺘﺮﺣﺎت ﻣﻔﻴﺪة‪ .‬وأﻳﻀﺎ ﺳﻮف ﺗﻨﻈﺮ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ دراﺳﺔ‬ ‫ﺗﺄﺷﻴﺮات اﻷوﻋﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﻄﻮرات اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻨﺘﺞ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ‪.AACR‬‬ ‫ﺑﺪأت ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ دراﺳﺔ ﺗﺄﺷﻴﺮات اﻷوﻋﻴﺔ ﺗﺤﺖ رﺋﺎﺳﺔ ﻟﻴﻦ هﻮوارث ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ ﻗﻀﻴﺘﻴﻦ ﺗﻢ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪهﻤﺎ ﻟﻤﺰﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ أﺛﻨﺎء ﻣﺆﺗﻤﺮ‬ ‫اﻹﻓﻼ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻤﻲ ﻓﻲ أوﺳﻠﻮ‪ ،‬وهﻤﺎ‪:‬‬ ‫• ﻣﻜﺎن اﻟﺘﺄﺷﻴﺮة اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﺎء ‪GMD‬‬ ‫• ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ وﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﻣﺤﺘﻮى وﺻﻴﺎﻏﺔ اﻟﺘﺄﺷﻴﺮة اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﺎء‪ ،‬اﻟﺤﻘﻞ ‪ ،3‬اﻟﺤﻘﻞ ‪ ،5‬اﻟﺤﻘﻞ ‪.7‬‬ ‫أﺻﺒﺢ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻮاﺿﺢ أن ﻋﻤﻞ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت ﺳﻮف ﻳﺤﺘﺎج أن ﻳﺘﻮازى ﻣﻊ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ دراﺳﺔ اﻻﺗﺠﺎهﺎت‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺒﻠﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت )واﻟﺬي ﺳﻮف ﻧﻨﺎﻗﺸﻪ ﻻﺣﻘﺎ(‪ .‬وﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻘﻮم ﺑﺘﺤﻀﻴﺮ‪ ،‬أوﻻ‪ ،‬اﻟﻨﺺ اﻟﻤﺘﻨﺎﻏﻢ وﺑﻌﺪ ذﻟﻚ ﺗﺪوب اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻊ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻗﺮرت ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ أن‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪ اآﺘﻤﺎل اﻟﻨﺺ اﻟﻤﺘﻨﺎﻏﻢ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮف ﺗﻔﺤﺺ اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت وﺗﻘﻮم ﺑﺘﻘﻴﻴﻤﻬﺎ‬ ‫وﻋﻤﻞ اﻗﺘﺮاﺣﺎت ﻟﻠﻤﺤﺘﻮى واﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت اﻟﺘﻲ ﺳﺘﺴﺘﺨﺪم اﻟﺘﺄﺷﻴﺮة اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﺎء واﻟﺤﻘﻮل ‪ 7 ،5 ،3‬ﻓﻲ ﺗﺪوب اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻊ‪.‬‬ ‫وﺑﻌﺪ اﻟﺘﻌﺮض ﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت وﺟﻬﺖ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ اهﺘﻤﺎﻣﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺸﻜﻼت اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﻣﻜﺎن أو ﻣﻮﻗﻊ اﻟﺘﺄﺷﻴﺮة اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﻮﻋﺎء داﺧﻞ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ وإﺛﻨﺎء اﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻬﺎ اﻟﻌﺎم اﻟﻤﺎﺿﻲ ‪ 2004‬ﻓﻲ ﺑﻴﻮﻧﺲ اﻳﺮﻳﺲ واﻓﻘﺖ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ أهﻤﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﺄﺷﻴﺮة اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﻮﻋﺎء آﺄداة ﺗﺤﺬﻳﺮ ﻣﺒﻜﺮة ﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﻲ اﻟﻔﻬﺮس وﺗﺒﻌﺎ ﻟﺬﻟﻚ رآﺰت ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﻟﻤﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ ﺣﻮل اﻋﺘﺒﺎر ﺣﻘﻞ ﺗﺪوب ﻓﺮﻳﺪ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺘﺄﺷﻴﺮة اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﺎء‪ .‬وأﺛﻨﺎء اﺟﺘﻤﺎع أوﺳﻠﻮ ﻇﻠﺖ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﺣﺴﺎﺳﺔ ﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮات ﻣﺎ ﻳﻄﻠﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ اﻟﺤﻘﻞ ‪ 5‬ﻷﺷﻜﺎل‬ ‫اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮاﻣﺞ اﻟﻤﻮردﻳﻦ وﻋﺮوض اﻟﻔﻬﺮس اﻟﻌﺎم ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺨﻂ اﻟﻤﺒﺎﺷﺮ‪/‬اﻹﻧﺘﺮﻧﺖ‪ .‬وﻣﻊ ذﻟﻚ وﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ ﻋﻤﻴﻘﺔ وواﺳﻌﺔ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺷﻜﻠﺖ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻘﺘﺮﺣﺎ ﺑﺄن ﺗﻮاﻓﻖ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﺗﺪوب ﻓﻲ أوﺳﻠﻮ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ‪:‬‬ ‫وﺿﻌﺖ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ اﻟﻌﺒﺎرة اﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻤﺖ اﻟﻤﻮاﻓﻘﺔ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﻓﻲ اﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ ﻋﺸﺮ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ أﻏﺴﻄﺲ ﻓﻲ أوﺳﻠﻮ‪„ :‬إن إدراك اﻟﺼﻌﻮﺑﺎت اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺮة ﻓﻲ ﻇﻞ ﺻﻔﺔ اﺧﺘﻴﺎري اﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ واﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت وﻣﻜﺎن اﻟﺘﺄﺷﻴﺮة اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﻮﻋﺎء‪ ،‬وﻣﻊ ﺗﻮﻗﻊ أن ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ دراﺳﺔ اﻻﺗﺠﺎهﺎت اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺒﻠﻴﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻌﻤﻞ ﻓﻲ اﺗﺠﺎﻩ إﻧﺘﺎج ﺗﺪوب ﻣﺠﻤﻊ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ „ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ‬ ‫‪36‬‬

‫‪69‬‬

‫‪http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/pubs/ISBD-FRBR-mappingFinal.pdf‬‬

‫ﻧﻮع اﻟﻮﻋﺎء ‪ “Document Type Definition DTD‬اﻗﺘﺮﺣﺖ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ دراﺳﺔ ﺗﺄﺷﻴﺮة اﻷوﻋﻴﺔ إﻧﺸﺎء ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻞ وﻓﺮﻳﺪ‬ ‫)ﻟﻴﺲ ﺣﻘﻞ ﺗﺪوب ﻣﺮﻗﻢ( – ﺗﺄﺷﻴﺮة „ﻣﺤﺘﻮى‪/‬اﻟﺤﺎﻣﻞ“ أو „ﻣﺤﺘﻮى‪/‬اﻟﻮﺳﻴﻂ“ ﻋﻠﻰ أن ﻳﻜﻮن إﺟﺒﺎرﻳﺎ – ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ اﻟﻤﺜﺎل ﻟﻴﺲ‬ ‫اﺧﺘﻴﺎرﻳﺎ آﻤﺎ هﻮ اﻟﺤﺎل ﺣﺎﻟﻴﺎ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺄﺷﻴﺮة اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﺎء – ﻟﻮﺿﻌﻪ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫„ﺗﺆآﺪ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ دراﺳﺔ ﺗﺄﺷﻴﺮة اﻷوﻋﻴﺔ أن هﺬا اﻟﻌﻨﺼﺮ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻞ ﻋﻦ ﻋﺮوض اﻟﻨﻈﺎم – ﺑﻤﻌﻨﻰ اﻟﻨﻈﻢ اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن ﺗﻌﺮض‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮى اﻟﻤﺴﺠﻞ ﻟﺘﺄﺷﻴﺮة „ﻣﺤﺘﻮى‪/‬اﻟﺤﺎﻣﻞ“ أو „ﻣﺤﺘﻮى‪/‬اﻟﻮﺳﻴﻂ“ ﺣﻴﺚ أن آﻞ ﻣﻮرد ﻧﻈﺎم أو ﻣﺆﺳﺴﺔ ﻣﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﻈﺎم ﺳﻮف‬ ‫ﺗﺤﺪد وﺿﻌﻪ آﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻼءم وﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺧﺎص ﻣﺎ إذا آﺎن هﺬا اﻟﻌﻨﺼﺮ ﺟﺰء ﻣﻦ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻧﻮع اﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘﺔ ‪ DTD‬واﻟﺬي ﺳﻮف ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺤﻪ‬ ‫ﻓﻲ اﺳﺘﻤﺎرة أو آﻤﺎ ﻳﺮى ﻣﻮرد اﻟﻨﻈﺎم و‪/‬أو اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺔ‪“.‬‬ ‫ﻗﺎﻣﺖ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﺑﺘﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻣﺰاﻳﺎ ﻣﺘﻌﺪدة ﺳﻮف ﺗﻨﺘﺞ ﻋﻦ هﺬا اﻟﻤﻘﺘﺮح وﺗﺸﻤﻞ‪:‬‬ ‫• ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻞ وﻓﺮﻳﺪ وﻣﻤﻴﺰ ﻳﻘﺪم ﻣﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت هﺎﻣﺔ ﺑﺸﺎن اﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮى واﻟﻮﺳﻴﻂ اﻟﺨﺎص ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺼﺪر‬ ‫• ﺑﻤﺎ أن اﻟﺘﺮﺗﻴﺐ واﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﺤﺪدا )ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻧﻮع اﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘﺔ ‪ (DTD‬ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺒﻬﺎ ﻃﺒﻘﺎ ﻟﻤﻮاﺻﻔﺎت اﺳﺘﻤﺎرة(‪،‬‬ ‫هﻨﺎك ﻣﺮوﻧﺔ ﺗﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻋﺮض ﻣﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت „ﻣﺤﺘﻮى‪/‬اﻟﺤﺎﻣﻞ“ أو „ﻣﺤﺘﻮى‪/‬اﻟﻮﺳﻴﻂ“‬ ‫• إﻧﺸﺎء ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﻓﺮﻳﺪ ﺟﻨﺒﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﻨﺐ ﻣﻊ ﻣﻮاﺻﻔﺔ ﻣﺤﺘﻮاﻩ ﺳﻮف ﻳﺴﺎﻋﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺮآﻴﺰ ﻣﺤﺘﻮى اﻟﺤﻘﻞ ‪) 3‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺜﺎل ﻣﺎدة ﻓﺮﻳﺪة(‪ ،‬اﻟﺤﻘﻞ ‪ ،5‬إﻟﻰ درﺟﺔ ﻣﺎ اﻟﺤﻘﻞ ‪ .7‬وهﻜﺬا اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت داﺧﻞ آﻞ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺳﻮف ﺗﻜﻮن أآﺜﺮ دﻗﺔ‬ ‫وﺗﻤﻴﻴﺰ‪ ،‬اﻷﻣﺮ اﻟﺬي ﻳﻘﻮم ﺑﺤﻞ اﻟﻤﺸﻜﻼت اﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺑﺘﺪاﺧﻞ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﺤﻘﻮل اﻟﻤﺘﺮاﺑﻄﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫• ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻞ ﺑﺪﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻘﻞ ﻣﺴﻤﻰ وﻣﺮﺗﺐ داﺧﻞ إﻃﺎر ﻋﻤﻞ ﺗﺪوب اﻟﺤﺎﻟﻲ ﻗﺪ ﻳﺸﺠﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ إﻋﺎدة اﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺮﻗﻴﻢ‬ ‫وﺗﺴﻤﻴﺔ وﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ وﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ اﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎت ﻓﻲ اﻹﺻﺪارة اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺒﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺪوب اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻊ‪.‬‬ ‫وﺑﻌﺪ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻜﺎن ﻓﺮﻳﺪ ﻟﺘﺄﺷﻴﺮة „ﻣﺤﺘﻮى‪/‬اﻟﺤﺎﻣﻞ“ أو „ﻣﺤﺘﻮى‪/‬اﻟﻮﺳﻴﻂ“ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ اﻵن أن ﺗﺮآﺰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎهﻴﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺪﺧﻞ ﻓﻲ هﺬا اﻟﻌﻨﺼﺮ ‪ ،GMD‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ إﻟﻰ اﻟﺤﻘﻮل ‪ . 7 – 5 – 3‬وﺳﻮف ﺗﻌﻤﻞ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ دراﺳﺔ ﺗﺄﺷﻴﺮات‬ ‫اﻷوﻋﻴﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻗﺮب ﻣﻊ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ دراﺳﺔ اﻻﺗﺠﺎهﺎت اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺒﻠﻴﺔ وأﻳﻀﺎ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻋﻤﻞ ‪ GMD/SMD‬اﻟﺘﻲ ﻋﻴﻨﺘﻬﺎ ﻟﺠﻨﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﺘﻮﺟﻴﻪ اﻟﻤﺸﺘﺮك واﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﺘﻮﻗﻊ أن ﺗﺼﺪر ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺮهﺎ ﻗﺮﻳﺒﺎ‪ .‬ﺳﻮف ﻳﺘﻢ اﺳﺘﺸﺎرة ﺗﻮم دﻳﻠﺴﻲ ﻣﺤﺮر ‪ RDA‬ﻋﻨﺪ اﻟﺤﺎﺟﺔ ﻟﻔﺮز‬ ‫وﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ وﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﺧﻼل هﺬﻩ اﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺘﻌﺮض ﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ أﺧﺮى ﻣﻦ ﻗﻀﺎﻳﺎ اﻻهﺘﻤﺎم ﻗﺎﻣﺖ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﻓﻲ ‪ 2002‬ﺑﺘﺸﻜﻴﻞ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ دراﺳﺔ اﻟﺴﻠﺴﻠﺔ ‪ series‬ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﺗﺪوب‪ .‬وﻳﻌﻜﺲ هﺬا اﻟﺠﻬﺪ اﻟﻘﻠﻖ ﺣﻮل ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﺘﻀﺎرب واﻟﻐﻤﻮض اﻟﺬي ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﺗﺠﺎﻩ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻞ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت ﻓﻲ اﻟﺤﻘﻞ ‪6‬‬ ‫واﻟﺨﺎص ﺑﺎﻟﺴﻠﺴﻠﺔ واﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت ذات اﻟﺼﻠﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺤﻘﻞ ‪ 7‬اﻟﺨﺎص ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻼﺣﻈﺎت‪ .‬ﻣﻊ اﻷﺧﺬ ﻓﻲ اﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎر اﻷوﺻﺎف‬ ‫ذات اﻟﺼﻠﺔ ﻣﻦ ‪ AACR2‬وﺗﻌﻠﻴﻤﺎت وإرﺷﺎدات ‪ ، ISSN‬ﺣﺪدت ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ أهﺪاف‪:‬‬ ‫• ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ اﻟﻐﺮض ﻣﻦ اﻟﺤﻘﻞ ‪ 6‬وﻋﻼﻗﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺤﻘﻞ ‪ 1‬ﻓﻲ )‪ ISBD (CR‬و ‪ :ISSN‬اﻟﻬﻮﻳﺔ واﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻞ‪.‬‬ ‫• اﻟﺘﺤﻘﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻮاﻓﻖ ﻣﺼﺎدر اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت اﻟﻤﻘﺘﺮﺣﺔ أو اﻟﻤﻮﺻﻮﻓﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت ﻟﻠﺤﻘﻞ ‪ 6‬واﻟﺤﻘﻞ ‪ 1‬ﻓﻲ‬ ‫)‪ ISBD (CR‬و ‪. ISSN‬‬ ‫• اﻗﺘﺮاح ﺟﻤﻠﺔ ﻣﻮﺣﺪة ﻟﻠﺤﻘﻞ ‪ 6‬ﻓﻲ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت‪.‬‬ ‫ﺑﻌﺪ ﺗﻮزﻳﻊ أوراق اﻟﻤﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ أوﺿﺤﺖ ﺗﻌﻘﺪ اﻟﻘﻀﺎﻳﺎ ﻣﺤﻞ اﻟﺒﺤﺚ‪ ،‬واﻓﻘﺖ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻧﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت ﻳﺨﺼﺺ‬ ‫اﻟﺤﻘﻞ ‪ 6‬ﺑﺸﻜﻞ أﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻞ اﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎت ﻣﻦ اﻟﻮﻋﺎء ﻣﺤﻞ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ وﺑﺸﻜﻞ اﻗﻞ ﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ اﻟﻬﻮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬وان اﻷﺧﻄﺎء اﻟﻤﻄﺒﻌﻴﺔ اﻟﻮاﺿﺤﺔ‬ ‫ﻻ ﻳﺠﺐ ﺗﺼﺤﻴﺤﻬﺎ‪ .‬وﻓﻲ هﺬﻩ اﻷﺛﻨﺎء ﺗﻘﻮم ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ أﻳﻀﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺸﻜﻼت اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﻤﺼﺎدر اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت ﻟﻠﺤﻖ ‪،6‬‬ ‫واﺿﻌﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎر اﻻﺧﺘﻼف اﻟﻜﺒﻴﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻤﺎرﺳﺎت اﻟﻨﺸﺮ ﺣﻮل اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ ﻓﻲ وﺿﻊ اﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺴﻠﺴﻠﺔ‬ ‫واﻟﺴﻠﺴﻠﺔ اﻟﻔﺮﻋﻴﺔ واﻟﻤﻤﺎرﺳﺎت ﻏﻴﺮ اﻟﺜﺎﺑﺘﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺎت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ اﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت‪ .‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ اﻟﻤﺜﺎل‬ ‫ﺗﻘﻮم ﺑﻌﺾ هﻴﺌﺎت اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ ﺑﺈﻧﺸﺎء اﻟﺴﻠﺴﻠﺔ اﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻴﺔ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻓﻲ ﺣﻴﻦ ﺗﻘﻮم هﻴﺌﺎت أﺧﺮى ﺑﺈﻧﺸﺎء ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻼت ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻠﺔ ﻟﻠﺴﻠﺴﻠﺔ اﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻴﺔ‬ ‫واﻟﺴﻠﺴﻠﺔ اﻟﻔﺮﻋﻴﺔ اﻋﺘﻤﺎدا ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻟﻤﻤﻴﺰ ﻟﻠﺴﻠﺴﻠﺔ اﻟﻔﺮﻋﻴﺔ أو وﺟﻮد اﻟﺘﺮﻗﻴﻢ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻗﻀﻴﺔ أﺧﺮى ﺗﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻄﺔ ﺑﺎﻻﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎت ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺼﺎدر اﻟﻤﻮﺻﻮﻓﺔ‪ ،‬واﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻬﺎ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ اﻟﻤﻨﻔﺮدات ﻣﺘﻌﺪدة‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺠﻠﺪات وان ﺗﻌﻄﻰ اﻷوﻟﻮﻳﺔ ﻟﺼﻔﺤﺔ اﻟﻌﻨﻮان ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﺴﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻜﻮن ﻣﻮﺟﻮدة‪.‬‬ ‫وﻓﻲ ﻣﺠﺎل ﺁﺧﺮ ﺗﻤﺎﻣﺎ آﻤﺎ ﺗﻘﻮم ﻟﺠﻨﺔ اﻟﺘﻮﺟﻴﻪ اﻟﻤﺸﺘﺮك ﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ‪ AACR‬ﺑﺈﻋﺎدة اﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻨﻈﻴﻢ وﺗﻘﺪﻳﻢ ‪AACR/RDA‬‬ ‫ﻗﺮرت ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ أﻧﻬﺎ ﻳﺠﺐ أﻳﻀﺎ أن ﺗﻔﻜﺮ ﻓﻲ إﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺟﻤﻊ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت ﻓﻲ وﺛﻴﻘﺔ واﺣﺪة‪ .‬ﺣﺎﻟﻴﺎ هﻨﺎك ﺳﺒﻊ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت‬ ‫ﻣﺘﺨﺼﺼﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ إﻟﻰ ﺗﺪوب اﻟﻌﺎم‪ .‬هﺬﻩ اﻟﺘﺪوﺑﺎت ﺗﻤﺖ ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺘﻬﺎ وﻧﺸﺮهﺎ ﻓﻲ أوﻗﺎت ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﺑﺪون وﺟﻮد ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ‬ ‫ﻹدراج اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮات ﻓﻲ اﻟﻨﺼﻮص اﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪة ﺗﺆﺛﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت ﻓﻲ اﻟﻨﺼﻮص اﻟﻘﺪﻳﻤﺔ‪ .‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ اﻟﻤﺜﺎل ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻢ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺮ‬ ‫إدراج اﻟﻘﺮارات ﺣﻮل ﻣﺎهﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ اﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎت اﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﺠﺐ اﻻﺣﺘﻔﺎظ ﺑﻬﺎ آﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ إﺟﺒﺎرﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت اﻋﺘﻤﺎدا ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ‬

‫‪70‬‬

‫اﻟﻤﻄﻠﻮﺑﺔ ﻓﻲ ‪ FRBR‬هﺬﻩ اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮات ﺗﻢ إدراﺟﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ آﻞ ﻣﻦ )‪ISBD (R‬و )‪ ISBD(M‬واﻟﻠﺬان ﺻﺪرا ﻓﻲ ‪ 2002‬ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺮﻏﻢ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ أﻧﻬﺎ ﺗﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت‪.‬‬ ‫وﻣﻦ ﺛﻢ ﺗﻢ ﺗﺸﻜﻴﻞ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ دراﺳﺔ ﻓﻲ ‪ 2003‬ﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺟﺪوى دﻣﺞ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت‪ .‬وﻗﺮرت ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ اﻋﺘﺒﺎر اﻟﺠﺪوى‬ ‫وﺑﺪأت ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‪ .‬وﺗﻢ ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ اﻷهﺪاف واﻟﻤﺒﺎدئ اﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫اﻷهﺪاف ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻨﺤﻮ اﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ‪:‬‬ ‫• ﺗﺤﻀﻴﺮ ﺗﺪوب ﻣﺠﻤﻊ وﻣﺤﺪث ﻣﻦ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت اﻟﻤﺘﺨﺼﺼﺔ ﻟﻤﻘﺎﺑﻠﺔ اﺣﺘﻴﺎﺟﺎت اﻟﻤﻔﻬﺮﺳﻴﻦ واﻟﻤﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت‬ ‫اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫• ﺗﻮﻓﻴﺮ ﻃﺮق ﺛﺎﺑﺘﺔ ﻟﻮﺻﻒ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ أﻧﻮاع اﻟﻤﺼﺎدر ﻟﺪرﺟﺔ اﻟﺘﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﻋﻨﺪ اﻹﻣﻜﺎن وﻃﺮق ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﻷﻧﻮاع اﻟﻤﺼﺎدر‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺘﺨﺼﺼﺔ آﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﺗﻮﺻﻴﻒ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﺼﺎدر‪.‬‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺒﺎدئ ﺗﺸﺘﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ‪:‬‬ ‫• اﻟﻐﺮض اﻷﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺪوب هﻮ ﺗﻮﻓﻴﺮ ﻓﻬﺮﺳﺔ وﺻﻔﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺎﻋﺪة ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺒﺎدل اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ‬ ‫اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺎت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ اﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ وﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل ﻣﺠﺘﻤﻊ اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺎت واﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ )ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ اﻟﻤﺜﺎل اﻟﻤﻨﺘﺠﻴﻦ‬ ‫واﻟﻨﺎﺷﺮﻳﻦ(‪.‬‬ ‫• ﻳﺠﺐ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ اﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ اﻟﻀﺮورﻳﺔ ﻟﺘﻤﻴﻴﺰ اﻟﻤﺼﺎدر‪.‬‬ ‫• ﺿﺮورة ﻣﺮاﻋﺎة اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺎت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ اﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ واﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺎت اﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ وهﺬا ﺳﻮف ﻳﻮﻓﺮ أﻳﻀﺎ اﻟﻤﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎت‬ ‫اﻟﻀﺮورﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎت اﻟﺒﺤﺜﻴﺔ واﻷآﺎدﻳﻤﻴﺔ ﻳﺠﺐ ﺗﻮﻓﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت اﻟﻮﺻﻔﻴﺔ اﻟﻜﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻟﺘﻤﻜﻴﻦ اﻟﻮﺻﻮل إﻟﻰ‬ ‫واﺳﺘﺮﺟﺎع اﻟﻤﺼﺪر واﺳﺘﺨﺪاﻣﻪ‪.‬‬ ‫• ﺳﻮف ﺗﻮﻓﺮ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت اﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ وﻟﻴﺲ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻋﺮض واﺳﺘﺨﺪام هﺬﻩ اﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻧﻈﺎم ﺁﻟﻲ ﻣﻌﻴﻦ اﻟﺘﺮآﻴﺰ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻄﻠﻮب‪.‬‬ ‫• ﻳﺠﺐ اﻋﺘﺒﺎر اﻟﻤﻤﺎرﺳﺎت اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺤﻘﻖ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﻜﻠﻔﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺗﻘﺎﺑﻠﺖ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﺑﺮﺋﺎﺳﺔ دوروﺛﻲ ﻣﺎآﺠﺎري ﻓﻲ اﺑﺮﻳﻞ ‪ 2005‬وﻗﺒﻞ هﺬا اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع آﺎن هﻨﺎك اﺗﻔﺎق ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﺪوى ﺗﺪوب‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻊ‪ .‬وﻗﺎﻣﺖ اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺔ اﻷﻟﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ آﺎﻧﺖ راﻋﻴﺔ ﻟﻼﺟﺘﻤﺎع ﺑﺈﻋﺪاد ﻣﺼﻔﻮﻓﺎت ﻟﻜﻞ ﺣﻘﻞ ﻟﺘﺠﻤﻴﻊ اﻟﺤﻘﻮل اﻟﻤﺘﺸﺎﺑﻬﺔ ﻣﻦ آﻞ‬ ‫ﺗﺪوب‪ .‬وﻋﻤﻼ ﻋﻠﻰ هﺬا اﻷﺳﺎس ﻗﺎم أﻋﻀﺎء ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﺑﺘﻨﻘﻴﺢ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﺼﻔﻮﻓﺎت ﻟﺘﺠﻤﻴﻊ اﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ داﺧﻞ اﻟﺤﻘﻮل ﻣﻦ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ‬ ‫ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت‪.‬‬ ‫ﺗﻢ اﻟﺘﻮﺻﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻻﺗﻔﺎق ﻋﻠﻰ اﻹﻃﺎر اﻟﻌﺎم اﻟﺬي ﻳﺠﺐ إﺗﺒﺎﻋﻪ ﻓﻲ آﻞ ﺣﻘﻞ‪ .‬وﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ إﻟﻰ ذﻟﻚ ﺗﻢ اﺗﺨﺎذ اﻟﻘﺮار ﺣﻮل اﻗﺘﺮاح‬ ‫اﻵﺗﻲ‪:‬‬ ‫• ﻳﺠﺐ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻟﻬﻴﻜﻞ ‪structure‬‬ ‫• ﻳﺠﺐ إدﺧﺎل اﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼت اﻟﺤﺪﻳﺜﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻬﻴﻜﻞ اﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪ‬ ‫• ﺳﻮف ﻳﺘﻢ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﺘﻐﻴﺮات ﺑﺴﺒﺐ اﻟﺤﺎﺟﺔ إﻟﻰ ﺗﻌﻤﻴﻢ اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت‬ ‫• ﻳﺠﺐ ﻧﻘﻞ اﻟﺘﺄﺷﻴﺮة اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﺎء ﻣﻦ ﺑﻌﺪ اﻟﻌﻨﻮان ﻧﻔﺴﻪ إﻟﻰ ﻣﻜﺎن ﺁﺧﺮ‬ ‫• اﻟﺼﺎدرات )اﻟﻤﺼﺤﺤﺔ( اﻟﻤﻨﺸﻮرة ﺳﻮف ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪم آﺄﺳﺎس ﻟﻠﻌﻤﻞ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺮﺣﻠﺔ اﻷوﻟﻰ‬ ‫وآﻤﺘﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﻟﻬﺬا اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع ﻋﻘﺪت ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ اﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ أﺛﻨﺎء ﻣﺆﺗﻤﺮ اﻹﻓﻼ‪ .‬وﺗﻢ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﺟﺪول زﻣﻨﻲ ﻟﺘﺤﻀﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﺨﻄﻂ‬ ‫اﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﻟﺘﻨﺎﻏﻢ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت‪ ،‬ﻣﻊ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻘﺎت ﻟﻠﻤﻘﺘﺮﺣﺎت ﺣﻮل اﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺜﺎت واﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮات اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﺿﺮورﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻮﻗﺖ‬ ‫اﻟﺤﺎﺿﺮ‪ .‬وهﻨﺎك اﺟﺘﻤﺎع ﺁﺧﺮ ﻷﻋﻀﺎء ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﻣﺨﻄﻂ ﻓﻲ ﺑﺪاﻳﺔ أﺑﺮﻳﻞ ‪ 2006‬ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺔ اﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ اﻷﻟﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺧﻄﻂ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ واﻟﺠﺪول اﻟﺰﻣﻨﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻨﺤﻮ اﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ‪ :‬ﺳﻮف ﺗﻘﻮم ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﺑﺘﺤﻀﻴﺮ اﻟﻨﺺ اﻟﻤﺪﻣﺞ ‪merged text‬‬ ‫ﻟﺴﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت آﻤﺎ ﺗﻢ ﻧﺸﺮهﺎ‪ .‬هﺬا اﻟﻨﺺ ﺳﻒ ﻳﻘﺪم ﺟﻨﺒﺎ إﻟﻰ ﺟﻨﺐ ﻣﻊ ﻋﻤﻮد ﻳﺤﺘﻮي ﻋﻠﻰ اﻗﺘﺮاﺣﺎت ﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﺗﺪوب‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮات ﻣﻦ اﻟﻄﺒﻌﺎت اﻟﻤﻨﺸﻮرة ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ إﻟﻰ ﺗﻠﻚ اﻟﺘﻲ ﻧﺘﺠﺖ ﻋﻦ دﻣﺞ اﻟﻨﺼﻮص اﻟﻔﺮدﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﺳﻮف ﻳﺘﻢ إﻇﻬﺎر اﻟﻤﻘﺘﺮﺣﺎت‬ ‫واﻟﻤﺸﺎآﻞ اﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ واﻷﺧﺬ ﻓﻲ اﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎر‪ .‬وﺑﻨﻬﺎﻳﺔ دﻳﺴﻤﺒﺮ ﻳﺠﺐ اآﺘﻤﺎل هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﺮﺣﻠﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫آﻤﺎ ذآﺮﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻗﺮرت ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﻓﻲ أﺳﻠﻮ أن ﻣﺰﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺣﻮل ﺗﺪوب اﻟﻤﺼﺎدر اﻹﻟﻜﺘﺮوﻧﻴﺔ وﺗﺪوب اﻟﻤﻮاد‬ ‫اﻟﺨﺮاﺋﻄﻴﺔ ﻳﺠﺐ ﺗﺄﺟﻴﻠﻪ ﺣﺘﻰ ﺻﻴﻒ ‪ 2006‬ﻟﻠﺘﺄآﺪ ﻣﻦ أن ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ دراﺳﺔ اﻻﺗﺠﺎهﺎت اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺒﻠﻴﺔ ﺗﻜﻮن ﻗﺎدرة ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺘﺮآﻴﺰ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﻣﻬﻤﺘﻬﺎ اﻷوﻟﻴﺔ واﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺘﻨﺎﻏﻢ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت واﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺜﻬﺎ‪ .‬وﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ذﻟﻚ ﺳﻮف ﺗﻀﻊ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ دراﺳﺔ‬ ‫اﻻﺗﺠﺎهﺎت اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺒﻠﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻋﺘﺒﺎرهﺎ اﻟﻨﺼﻮص اﻷوﻟﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺪوب اﻟﻤﺼﺎدر اﻹﻟﻜﺘﺮوﻧﻴﺔ وﺗﺪوب اﻟﻤﻮاد اﻟﺨﺮاﺋﻄﻴﺔ أﺛﻨﺎء هﺬﻩ‬

‫‪71‬‬

‫اﻟﻤﺮﺣﻠﺔ‪ .‬ﺳﻮف ﻳﻘﻮم رﺋﻴﺲ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ أﻳﻀﺎ ﺑﺎﻻﺗﺼﺎل ﺑﺮﺋﻴﺲ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺗﺪوب ﻓﻲ اﻟﺠﻤﻌﻴﺔ اﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻜﺘﺒﺎت اﻟﻤﻮﺳﻴﻘﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺘﺤﺪﻳﺜﺎت اﻟﻀﺮورﻳﺔ اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺠﻮاﻧﺐ اﻟﻤﻮﺳﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت‪.‬‬ ‫وﺑﻌﺪ ذﻟﻚ ﺳﻮف ﺗﻌﻤﻞ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼت ﺁﺧﺬة ﻓﻲ اﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎر اﻟﺮدود اﻟﺘﻲ ﺣﺼﻠﺖ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ أﻋﻀﺎء ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻜﻮن هﻨﺎك ﻧﺺ ﺟﺎهﺰ ﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع رﺑﻴﻊ ‪ 2006‬ﻓﻲ ﻓﺮاﻧﻜﻔﻮرت‪ .‬وﻳﻤﻜﻦ اﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺸﺎآﻞ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻘﺔ هﻨﺎك‪ .‬ﺳﻮف‬ ‫ﻳﺘﻢ إرﺳﺎل اﻟﻨﺺ اﻟﺬي ﻳﻨﺘﺞ ﻋﻦ هﺬا اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻳﻮﻧﻴﻮ أو ﻳﻮﻟﻴﻪ ‪ 2006‬ﻟﻤﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ آﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻮل أﺛﻨﺎء‬ ‫ﻣﺆﺗﻤﺮ اﻹﻓﻼ‪ .‬وﺑﻌﺪ هﺬا اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع ﺳﻮف ﺗﻘﻮم ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﺑﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ اﻟﻨﺺ وﺗﺤﻀﻴﺮ ﻧﺴﺨﺔ أوﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻤﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﺳﺒﺘﻤﺒﺮ‪-‬ﻧﻮﻓﻤﺒﺮ ‪ .2006‬وﻣﻊ اﻷﺧﺬ ﻓﻲ اﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎر اﻟﺮدود اﻟﺘﻲ ﻧﺘﺠﺖ ﻋﻦ اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮف ﺗﻘﻮم ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﺑﺈرﺳﺎل اﻟﻨﺺ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻘﺘﺮح ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻮاﻓﻘﺔ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ .‬ﻓﻲ ﺑﺪاﻳﺔ ‪ 2007‬ﺳﻮف ﻳﺘﻢ إرﺳﺎل اﻟﻨﺺ إﻟﻰ اﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ اﻟﺪاﺋﻤﺔ ﻟﻘﺴﻢ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺘﺼﻮﻳﺖ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪.‬‬ ‫إن اﻟﻤﺴﻮح اﻟﻤﻴﺪاﻧﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻘﺎرن ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ واﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ أﺛﻨﺎء اﻟﺘﺤﻀﻴﺮ ﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﺎت اﻟﺨﺒﺮاء ﺣﻮل اﻟﻜﻮد اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ ﻗﺪ أﻇﻬﺮت أن ﺗﺪوب ﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪم ﺑﻜﺜﺎﻓﺔ آﺄﺳﺎس ﻟﻠﻮﺻﻒ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻲ وﻋﺎدة ﻣﻊ ﻗﻠﻴﻞ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼت‪ .37‬ﺗﻘﻮم ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﺑﺘﺤﻀﻴﺮ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﻲ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ ﺣﻮل اﻟﻨﻘﺎط اﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﺠﺐ اﻟﺘﻌﺮض ﻟﻬﺎ أﺛﻨﺎء ﺗﺤﺴﻴﻦ ﺗﺪوب‪ .‬وﺑﺸﻜﻞ‬ ‫ﺧﺎص ﻗﻤﻨﺎ ﺑﺘﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﺔ ﻣﻊ ﻟﺠﻨﺔ اﻟﺘﻮﺟﻴﻪ اﻟﻤﺸﺘﺮك ﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ‪ AACR‬ﺣﻮل اﻟﻘﻀﺎﻳﺎ اﻟﻤﺸﺘﺮآﺔ‪ .‬هﺬﻩ اﻟﺘﻌﺎوﻧﻴﺎت‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ إﻟﻰ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﻟﺬي ﺗﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ وﺻﻴﺎﻧﺔ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺗﺪوﺑﺎت واﻟﻄﺎﻗﺔ اﻟﻤﺨﺼﺼﺔ ﺣﺎﻟﻴﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﺸﺎرﻳﻊ اﻟﺠﺎرﻳﺔ أو اﻟﻤﺨﻄﻄﺔ ﺗﻌﺘﻤﺪ‬ ‫ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﻬﻮد اﻟﺨﺒﺮاء اﻟﻔﺮدﻳﺔ‪ .‬أود أن أﺧﺘﻢ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﻼﺣﻈﺎت ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ ﻋﻦ اﻣﺘﻨﺎﻧﻲ ﻷوﻟﺌﻚ اﻟﻤﺘﺨﺼﺼﻴﻦ ﻹﺳﻬﺎﻣﺎﺗﻬﻢ‬ ‫اﻟﻜﺜﻴﺮة ﻓﻲ ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﺗﺪوب واﻟﺬي ﻳﺴﺘﻤﺮ إﻟﻰ ﻳﻮﻣﻨﺎ هﺬا ﻟﻴﻤﺜﻞ أﺣﺪ اﻧﺠﺎزات اﻹﻓﻼ اﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺠﺎل اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪37‬‬

‫‪http://www.ddb.de/news/pdf/code_comp_2003_europe_2.pdf‬‬

‫‪72‬‬

BRAVE NEW FRBR WORLD (Version 3) By Patrick Le Boeuf, Bibliothèque nationale de France Revised by Barbara Tillett, Library of Congress Delivered in Cairo by Elena Escolano Rodríguez, Biblioteca nacional de España Ms. Escolano is the Chair of the Cataloguing Service at the National Library of Spain. This Service is responsible of the 45 people in charge of the cataloguing process of all new resources entered in the National Library by means of Legal Deposit, Purchase, Exchange, and Donations. The process follows the standard description of the resource and the authority control of access points, based on the intellectual or artistic responsibilities in the creation of the work. The result is the publication of the Current Spanish Bibliography. She also serves as the National Library of Spain’s representative in coordinating the Standardization Group of National and Autonomous Communities Libraries Cooperation Groups in Spain. She is a member of the IFLA Standing Committee of the Cataloguing Section, a member of the IFLA ISBD Review Group (becoming chair in 2006), a member of the IFLA Future Directions of ISBD’s Study Group, and member of the IME ICC Planning Committee. She chaired the conference in Spain on International Cataloguing Principles and European Rules in Madrid in April 2005 and has represented Spain at various conferences on cataloguing. She also has experience in teaching intensive courses on authority control in different Universities in Spain. Although she is not a member of the IFLA Review Group on FRBR, only an observer, she has graciously agreed to read the presentation on behalf of Patrick LeBoeuf author of the paper and former chair of the FRBR Review Group. The presentation is on the conceptual model that serves to identify and define the entities of the bibliographic universe, the attributes of each entity, and the types of relationships that operate between entities, from the point of view of the various tasks that users perform when consulting bibliographic records. Entities, attributes and relationships are a fundamental component of the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles that we are here to discuss in this conference. ________________________________________________________ Introduction You have just heard about the Paris Principles and ISBDs; I now would like to tell you about the FRBR model: what it is and what it is not; what it does and what it does not; and how it relates to our major topics during the present Meeting. What FRBR is — a model developed for IFLA FRBR is the result of a study about the functional requirements for bibliographic records undertaken from 1992 through 1997 by a group of experts and consultants and commissioned by IFLA. The aim of that study „was to produce a framework that would provide a clear,

73

precisely stated, and commonly shared understanding of what it is that the bibliographic record aims to provide information about, and what it is that we expect the record to achieve in terms of answering user needs.” — a reference model FRBR is a reference model. The very words quoted above from the FRBR Final Report and emphasised by me make it very clear: it is but a framework for commonly shared understanding. It allows us to have the same structure in mind and to refer to the same concepts under the same appellations. It allows us to compare data that may happen not to be structured the same way. — an E-R model FRBR is an entity-relationship model. It defines a number of general classes („entities”) of things that are deemed relevant in the specific context of a library catalogue, a row of characteristics („attributes”) that pertain to each of these general classes, and the relationships that can exist between instances of these various classes. The very core of FRBR consists in a group of 4 entities that pertain to documents themselves (the „things” that are being catalogued), from carrier to content. These 4 entities highlight the 4 distinct meanings attached to the word „kitab” (book). Originally, „kitab” just meant „something written,” but there are at least four distinct ways to understand what the phrase „something written” covers: — a “kitab” can be a physical object on which a text is written („I have lost my Kitab al-Fihrist”); this first interpretation has to do with the notion of „copy,” „exemplar;” the FRBR model uses the term „Item” to refer to that meaning. — a “kitab” can be a set of physical objects on which the same text is written („I have to order Kitab al-Fihrist”); this second interpretation is close to the notion of „publication;” but the FRBR model uses the more generic term „Manifestation,” in order to cover unpublished materials as well. — a “kitab” can be the text that is written („Is this text Kitab al-Fihrist version one or Kitab al-Fihrist version two?”). This third interpretation is equivalent to the notion of „text;” but once again the FRBR model uses a more generic term, „Expression,” in order to refer to non-linguistic contents, such as music, maps, images, etc.; or — a “kitab” can be the ideas that are expressed in the text that is written („Ibn al-Nadim is the author of both versions of Kitab al-Fihrist”). This fourth interpretation establishes the relationship between a text and its translations, and between the different versions of some human creation that is regarded as being „the same,” in spite of the existence of its various versions; the FRBR model refers to such a notion through the term „Work.” So in the FRBR model we have a first group of entities: work, expression, manifestation, item. A second group of entities comprises the 2 categories of entities that can create a Work, realise an Expression, produce or order a Manifestation, modify or possess an Item: Person and Corporate Body.

74

A third group of entities, reflecting what a Work may be about, comprises all of the above, plus 4 other entities that can only serve to express the subject of a Work: Concept, Object, Event, and Place. Each of all of those entities is characterised by a number of „attributes” – i.e., the information elements that serve to identify the entity. For instance, a published Manifestation is characterised, among other information elements, by its date of publication; a Person is characterised by the name associated with that Person. The FRBR model defines also relationships between those entities – as is natural enough for an entity-relationship model: The relationships between a Work and one of its Expressions, between an Expression and one of its Manifestations, and between a Manifestation and one of its Items are said to be „structural” because the overall coherence of a bibliographic record depends on such relationships. They are reflected in our catalogues by the physical unity of descriptive records, by the link between the bibliographic record and holdings information, and sometimes by uniform title headings. There are also „responsibility relationships” between Group 2 entities (Person and Corporate Body) and any of the entities belonging to Group 1. Such relationships are reflected in our catalogues by author headings. And there are „subject relationships” between any entity in the model and the sole entity „Work” – that is to say: a Work is about another Work, or about an Item, or about a Corporate Body, or about a Place, etc. Such relationships are reflected in our catalogues by subject headings. Those first three kinds of relationships are the most „basic” ones, deemed indispensable in library catalogues. There are still other, more „subtle” kinds of relationships, such as whole/part relationships between two distinct Works or two distinct Expressions of the same Work, or intellectual relationships between two distinct Works, or between two distinct Expressions of the same Work or of distinct Works. Whole/part relationships exist also between two distinct Manifestations or two distinct Items of the same Manifestation; and the model defines „reproduction relationships” between two distinct Manifestations, or between two distinct Items of the same Manifestation, or between a Manifestation and an Item of a distinct Manifestation. All such relationships can be reflected in our catalogues as actual active links among records (bibliographic, authority, and/or holdings records), enabling end-users to navigate seamlessly the catalogue, or relationships can be indicated through textual notes that provide the information (like contents notes or history notes) but sometimes constrain end-users to launch a new query in order to navigate the catalogue and attain the „target” of the described relationship. What FRBR is not — a data model Can FRBR be labelled a „data model”? It seems that the attributes it defines for each entity are in many cases too generic to allow for an implementation of the model such as it stands, without having to refine it. Titles for instance may have different natures; FRBR defines a Title attribute for each of the 3 entities Work, Expression, and Manifestation, but this categorisation of the „title notion” does not suffice to cover the typology of titles we actually need and currently use.

75

— an ISBD Can FRBR be labelled a „new kind of ISBD”? No, roughly for the same reasons: FRBR does not state how to structure data elements nor how to display them so that their structure can be understood by just reading the description. Instead, FRBR provides an intellectual framework to typify data elements and to show how they are interrelated among distinct records. — a cataloguing code Similarly, FRBR cannot be said to be a cataloguing code. FRBR is not prescriptive, and does not tell you how you should record bibliographic information in day-to-day practice. FRBR is located at a merely conceptual level. Which does not mean, however, that FRBR has no practical utility. We now have a number of systems that actually work and are based on the way FRBR views bibliographic information. And there is a possibility that the future International Cataloguing Code be informed by the concepts highlighted by the model. Some examples of implementation What does the phrase „FRBR implementation” mean? I have just said that FRBR was not a data model, so how could it be „implemented”? At best, by designing an intermediate data model, based on it; at worst, by just mistaking it for a data model; in any case, by mapping either an extant format to FRBR, or FRBR to a new format. AustLit Gateway AustLit Gateway was the earliest database fully implementing FRBR. It is an atypical experiment, in that it applies to an exclusively literary corpus of Australian texts, and in that it results from the merging of a range of various, heterogeneous datasets, some of which were not based on ISBDs. It is not a catalogue, but rather a database aiming to provide scholars and students with as much information as possible about Australian writers and Australian literary works. As such, it is work-centred and it displays for each work all of its expressions and manifestations on a single Web page, instead of presenting users with rows of distinct bibliographic records, as we do in our current library catalogues. Virtua VTLS Inc. released in 2002 version 41.0 of the Virtua library system. For the very first time, a vendor made it possible for any library to create its own „FRBR catalogue.” Extant MARC records can be „split” into the 4 levels of the FRBR Group 1 of entities, and any cataloguer can decide to account for bibliographic families rather than isolated documents, thanks to the FRBR structure. Virtua allows „flat records” and „FRBR records” to live sideby-side. The pattern followed when „splitting” records is based on Tom Delsey’s mapping of MARC21 to FRBR. However, the cataloguing paradigm is still based on ISBDs (the „Manifestation level record” is not substantially different from any „traditional” ISBDbased record), and the cataloguing format is still basically a MARC format, even though this MARC format is stored encapsulated in XML within the system, without cataloguers being aware of that.

76

On this fictitious example, borrowed from a presentation by Claude Détienne on the occasion of the 24th International Conference of MELCOM (Middle East Librarians Committee) in 2002, you can see, on the left part of the screen, the characteristic „FRBR tree,” showing the uniform title for the Work Alf layla wa-layla, two of its linguistic Expressions, and brief records for three of its Manifestations, and, on the right part of the screen, a complete bibliographic record for one of those three Manifestations, with a link to information about one Item. OCLC OCLC has invested considerable effort in exploring the FRBR potential for very large bibliographic databases. OCLC has developed an algorithm that allows „traditional” MARC records to be automatically transformed into „FRBRised” records. Three major OCLC realisations are based on this FRBRisation algorithm: xISBN, Open WorldCat, and FictionFinder. xISBN is a service that supplies the ISBNs that identify the various editions of a single Work. When you submit it an ISBN, by entering the URL http://labs.oclc.org/xISBN/ immediately followed by an ISBN, it returns a list of associated ISBNs. Perhaps you will wonder what you can do with a raw list of ISBNs? As a matter of fact, OCLC’s xISBN service is intended to be used by machines, rather than people. If you, as human beings, cannot do much with just a raw list of ISBNs, machines can do very interesting things with it. For instance, if you launch on Google or Yahoo a query on the words „maalouf crusades,” together with the phrase (within quotation marks) „find in a library” (or, alternatively, the instruction site:www.worldcatlibraries.org), the first hit you get is a WorldCat bibliographic record describing one of the many editions of Amin Maalouf’s „The crusades through Arab eyes.” Under that bibliographic record, you will notice the word „Editions,” which carries an active link. When you click on it, you get the list of the bibliographic records for all the various editions of Amin Maalouf’s Work, in various linguistic Expressions, that are avail-

77

able in WorldCat. You can pick one reference in that list, and thus obtain the display of a record for a distinct edition. OCLC’s prototype called FictionFinder (http://fictionfinder.oclc.org) shows how the display of bibliographic lists for textual works of fiction can be simplified by using the FRBRisation algorithm. For instance, the various editions of Najib Mahfuz’ novel Midaq alley are arranged by language, under a brief record at the Work level. By clicking on an individual entry in that list of languages, you get information about the editions of the Work in a given language, and complete records for individual editions. [OCLC’s Research Office also has a new experimental prototype called Curiouser for even greater use of the FRBR concepts to bring together the manifestations and expressions of works in very userfriendly displays.] RLG RLG’s OPAC „RedLightGreen,” which can be accessed at http://www.redlightgreen.com, reduces the four FRBR levels to only two: Work, and Manifestation. Unfortunately, due to inconsistencies in cataloguing and various degrees of accuracy in older bibliographic records, it is not always possible to cluster automatically all Manifestations under the Work they are of (by the way, this is true for WorldCat and FictionFinder as well). For instance, if you submit the words „diwan abu nuwas” to RedLightGreen, what you get is not just one uniform title under which all editions of Abu Nuwas’ poetry would be clustered. But you get subsets of editions, for example by clicking on the first line in the hit list you get „9 editions published between 1958 and 2002 in 2 languages.” By clicking on the title of the Work, you get information about one of its editions. And by clicking on the phrase „9 editions,” you get the complete list of those 9 editions, from which you can pick individual records. One advantage to RedLightGreen is its ability to offer the user suggestions of controlled forms of names and subjects to search and to transform selected citations into whatever citation style the user may want from a list of standards, like the Chicago Manual of Style. Current evolution of FRBR FRAR (Functional Requirements for Authority Records) FRBR focuses on the content of bibliographic records only (as opposed to authority records), and access points to bibliographic records, but does not go into detail about authority records. This is the reason why the FRANAR (Functional Requirements and Numbering for Authority Records) Working Group was created in 1999 under the joint auspices of the IFLA Division of Bibliographic Control and the Universal Bibliographic Control and International MARC Programme (the late UBCIM). The first of the three terms of reference for the FRANAR Group was „to define functional requirements of authority records, continuing the work that FRBR initiated.” Tom Delsey proved as instrumental in designing the FRAR model as he had been in designing the FRBR model. „Person” and „Corporate Body” that were only represented in FRBR by a heading, are now fully modelled, and the entity „Family” has been added in recognition of its importance to the archival community. FRSAR (Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records) The peculiar nature of subject relationships is only alluded to in FRBR, and is not dealt with in depth in FRAR. The IFLA Division of Bibliographic Control formed therefore in August 2005 a third Study Group, which is in charge of defining an extension of the FRBR/FRAR model in order to account for classification and indexing. This new model will be called FRSAR (Func-

78

tional Requirements for Subject Authority Records). With FRBR, FRAR, and FRSAR, we will have at last a complete model for the information we put in library catalogues. FRBR Review Group FRBR is not meant to remain such as it stands forever and ever. It was decided in 2003 to go through a reviewing process, and to form a FRBR Review Group affiliated to IFLA. Additionally, another working group was formed in 2005, in order to assist the FRBR Review Group in exploring the conceptual difficulties in modelling „aggregates,” that is: Manifestations that embody more than one Work, continuing resources, multi-volume monographs, and other whole/part issues… FRBR and the Meeting’s 5 „Focus Topics” (that happen to be 6…) Tomorrow, you will be invited to work on „Focus Topics” that have been defined prior to the Meeting. At the first two IME ICC meetings there were 5 working groups: Personal names, Corporate bodies, Uniform titles and GMDs, Seriality, and Multipart structures (composites versus aggregates). There are actually 6 of them, since the GMD issue and the uniform title issue are gathered under one Focus Topic. These 6 topics can be organised into three broad categories: „Appellations,” „Types,” and „Aggregates.” Let us have a quick glance at each of them in light of FRBR. „Appellations” Names of personal authors The attributes defined by FRBR for the Person entity distinguish between the „name” of a person and that person’s „dates,” „title,” and „other designation;” actually, these are all the elements that make up the heading for a person in a bibliographic record, and it surely would have been enough, for the purposes of FRBR, to define just one attribute: „heading.” The FRAR model addresses some issues that were out of the scope of FRBR: Is an instance of the Person entity supposed to be an actual person in the real world, or „something” else, and what? I mean: Can a real person be represented by two instances of the Person entity; inversely, can two real persons be represented in the catalogue universe by only one instance of the Person entity? The FRAR model, relying on AACR2, defines the notion of bibliographic identity, that is: that intermediate between the real world and the catalogue universe. This is actually what the Person entity is about. A real-life person may have several bibliographic identities (as in the case of pseudonyms), and several distinct real-life persons may be merged into one single bibliographic identity (as in the case of families and shared pseudonyms, but also in the case of undifferentiated names). An instance of the FRBR Person entity does not necessarily „overlap” with what we usually understand as „a person” in the real world. In most cases we strive to „control” bibliographic identities, that is: we strive to be quite aware of when distinct bibliographic identities correspond to one real-world person (in which case we would like to see links between bibliographic identities), and when one bibliographic identity corresponds to distinct persons. Families and shared pseudonyms can be controlled; undifferentiated names of persons are grouped together and not separately distinguished. The question therefore is: To what extent is that lack of control tolerable? Can it be tolerated at all? Does it have a substantial impact on the practicability of our catalogues for our users? Do they complain about it? Is the notion of „bibliographic identity” (as distinct from the notion of „realworld person”) helpful or confusing for end-users? It certainly strives to use the name the person used on manifestations, which is what an end-user would see at a bookstore or on a borrowed book from a friend or a library – putting the user first in terms of what they are likely to know. There would, of course, be references from variant forms of names.

79

Names of corporate bodies This is very much the same issue. The FRBR attributes for the Corporate Body entity actually could have been replaced, for the specific purposes of FRBR, with only one attribute, „heading.” Here again, the Corporate Body entity does not correspond to a real-world corporate body, but rather to the notion of „bibliographic identity” as defined by FRAR and AACR2. Does every name change reflect a transformation of a corporate body into a new corporate body? Should every name change result in the definition of a new bibliographic identity, or should all name changes be recorded as cross references for the same bibliographic identity, as end-users may be more responsive to the notion of a corporate body’s continuity over time, than to its occasional modifications? Should we go on regarding congresses as „corporate bodies,” while they are closer to the FRBR notion of „Event”? Many of these old concepts are evolving as we explore these models. Uniform titles Title attributes are defined in FRBR at three levels: Work, Expression, and Manifestation. Appendix A in the FRBR Final Report explicitly states that the title of a Work may be either a uniform title or the title proper; that there currently is no prescription at all for the title of an Expression; and that the title of a Manifestation may be the title proper, a parallel title, a variant title, a transliterated title (all of them are transcribed titles), or a key title (which actually is a title created by cataloguers). The title proper can therefore relate to both the Work and the Manifestation entities, while we do not know from FRBR what a title of an Expression could be. I think it is arguable and sensible to state that the title of an Expression actually consists of the title of the Work realised by the Expression, plus any combination of additional elements taken among all of the other attributes defined for the Expression entity. The absence of any prescription as to what constitutes the title of an Expression indicates that we currently have no identification device at the Expression level. Although many uniform titles already provide for elements that identify an expression, there is no system, in library catalogues, for consistently citing or referring to specific translations or versions of a given textual work, specific recorded performances of a given musical work, specific states of a given engraving, etc. Should our future International Cataloguing Code contain provisions for such a system? If so, which elements, and in which order, are strictly indispensable in order to cite/refer to a specific Expression, either in the role of title heading or in the role of subject heading? „Types” GMDs (General Material Designators) GMDs are not mentioned in the FRBR Final Report. One reason is that what we now know as „GMDs” through the ISBDs are a mixture of terms expressing content and others expressing the carrier for that content – information for the expression level (content) and for the manifestation level (carrier). This is a fact of historical convenience, but is very illogical. Perhaps FRBR lacks a „type” attribute for each of the three upper entities: Work, Expression, Manifestation. Perhaps what we have in mind when we talk about GMDs would be a combination of these 3 „type” levels, such as, for instance (these are only suggestions, I am aware they are not quite consistent): textual work – expressed as sound – on physical carrier textual work expressed as written word – on manuscript textual work expressed as written word – on microform musical work

80

expressed as notation – on printed material musical work expressed as sound – in an electronic resource on line. In some cases the expression level might be omitted: a cartographic work – in an electronic resource – online motion picture – on physical carrier multimedia work – on physical carrier(s). The problem is that we would like GMDs to be as concise as possible. All these suggested GMDs are much too long. „Aggregates” Seriality issues of when to make a new record Once again, the issue in cataloguing is about the correlation between appellations and the intrinsic essence of the entities that bear those appellations. Does every title change make a distinct, new Work out of a continuing resource? Does a title change affect the Manifestation level only, or the Work level of a continuing resource? Does the key title identify a continuing resource as a Work, as an Expression, or as a Manifestation? Why is the name of the originator of a continuing resource integrated into a key title as a qualifier, whereas for other kinds of works we most often create author-title headings? Why don’t we deal with key titles in authority records rather than bibliographic records? Why do we make bibliographic records for continuing resources, and authority records for trademarks, that are very much akin to continuing resources? Is it justified at all to create bibliographic records for periodicals? There have already been proposals to explore using authority records instead, so the FRBR model has also generated more thinking about these concepts. Multipart structures It often happens that one publication contains more than one individual Work. Is the purpose of library catalogues to enable end-users to identify and retrieve a given publication as a whole, or to identify and retrieve a given Work in all of its possible Manifestations? What is the basic unit of bibliographic information: the Work, or the Manifestation? This issue was known in the 1960s as the debate between „literary unit” (i.e., the Work) and the „bibliographic unit” (i.e., the Manifestation). In a recent lecture at the University of Illinois,38 Barbara Tillett said that „today, this debate is no longer relevant,” as „we don’t need to prefer bibliographic unit or literary unit over the other, because our bibliographic and authority information can be rearranged by computer systems to display the elements that we have included in description and access points.” I totally agree with her that the debate is no longer relevant and the current (and future) possibilities of our computer systems contribute to solve the problem, and yet the issue still has to be mentioned in this series of IME ICC meetings, because the way national cataloguing codes and individual library practices deal with this issue is so inconsistent that the same publication is often assigned very different descriptions in different catalogues.

38

Tillett, Barbara B. Cataloging for the future [on line]: delivered as the 2004 Phineas L. Windsor lecture at the University of Illinois Graduate School of Library and Information Science, October 13, 2004. [UrbanaChampaign, Ill.]: [GSLIS Publications Office], [2004] [cited 12 September 2005]. Available from the Internet: .

81

For instance, let us consider the following publication: Récits en noir et blanc : cinq nouvelles arabes [Qi. a. bi-al-abya. wa-al-aswad] („Narratives in black and white: five Arab short stories”), issued in Paris in 2001. The five Arab short stories contained in this publication were selected and translated into French by François Zabbal, who also wrote a foreword for the entire collection. Should we regard the abstract, textual content of „Narratives in black and white” on the whole as a Work, then? And is François Zabbal the „creator” of that Work? However, this is not the issue I intend to address here, as collections and anthologies are one of the many tricky topics that the IFLA Working Group on Aggregates will have to solve. My main concern here is: How to deal with the individual, distinct Works embodied in such a publication? In addition to Zabbal’s foreword, which is a Work in itself, „Narratives in black and white” contains the following Works by major Arab writers, both in their original Arabic Expression and in Zabbal’s French Expression: Le rêve [al-Ru’ya] („The dream”), by Abdessalam al-Ujayli; Le chanteur de nuit [Mughanni al-layl] („The night-singer”), by Zakaria Tamer; Le duel [alMubarazah] („The dual”), by Muhammad el Bisatie; Le funeste oiseau d’or [Ta’ir al-nahs aldhahabi] („The ominous golden bird”), by Ibrahim al-Koni; and Ochba [Ushbah], by Salma Matar Saif. Depending on which cataloguing code and which cataloguing policy we apply, we can: – just ignore all of them, as there are more than three; – mention them, possibly in square brackets, as an „other title information” statement; – mention them in a contents note, without indexing them; – mention them in a contents note, and create author/title added entries for all of them to be retrievable; – create analytical records. What should we recommend in an International Cataloguing Code? Conclusion It would be too wonderful if FRBR solved all theoretical problems, or could help us solve all theoretical problems. This is obviously not the case. But FRBR provides us with a conceptual tool that is very helpful in assessing and questioning the way we catalogue. The clear distinctions it makes between what is „physical” and what is „abstract” in the „things” we describe, and the various levels it identifies in the „content” of „publications,” are useful to keep in mind when we think about how to improve our catalogues and how to improve the services we provide our end-users with. Those distinctions should definitely be reflected in our future International Cataloguing Code.

82

‫ﻋﺎﻟﻢ ﻓﺮﺑﺮ اﻟﺠﺮيء اﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪ‬ ‫أﻋﺪﻩ‪ :‬ﺑﺎﺗﺮﻳﻚ ﻟﻮﺑﻮف‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺔ اﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ اﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ‬ ‫راﺟﻌﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎرﺑﺎرا ﺗﻴﻠﻴﺖ‪ ،‬ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ اﻟﻜﻮﻧﺠﺮس‬ ‫ﻗﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻘﺎهﺮة‪ :‬إﻟﻴﻨﺎ إﺳﻜﻮﻻﻧﻮ رودرﻳﺠﺰ‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺔ اﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ اﻷﺳﺒﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬

‫اﻟﻤﻘﺪﻣﺔ‬ ‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺳﻤﻌﺘﻢ ﺗﻮا ﻋﻦ ﻣﺒﺎدئ ﺑﺎرﻳﺲ وﺗﻘﻨﻴﻨﺎت ﺗﺪوب )اﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﻦ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ ﻟﻠﻮﺻﻒ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻲ(؛ أود اﻵن أن أﺗﺤﺪث إﻟﻴﻜﻢ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻤﻮذج‬ ‫‪ :FRBR‬ﻣﺎذا ﻳﻌﻨﻲ؛ وﻣﺎ اﻟﺬي ﻻ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ؛ ﻣﺎذا ﻳﻔﻌﻞ وﻣﺎذا ﻻ ﻳﻔﻌﻞ؛ وآﻴﻒ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎت اﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﻄﺮوﺣﺔ ﺧﻼل‬ ‫إﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻨﺎ اﻟﺤﺎﻟﻲ‬ ‫ﻣﺎ هﻮ ‪FRBR‬‬ ‫ ﻧﻤﻮذج ﻃﻮرﺗﻪ اﻻﻓﻼ‬‫‪ FRBR‬هﻮ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ دراﺳﺔ ﻋﻦ اﻟﻤﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎت اﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻤﺖ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺎم ‪ 1992‬إﻟﻰ ﻋﺎم ‪ 1997‬ﺑﻮاﺳﻄﺔ‬ ‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺨﺒﺮاء واﻟﻤﺴﺘﺸﺎرﻳﻦ ﺑﺘﻔﻮﻳﺾ ﻣﻦ اﻻﻓﻼ‪ .‬اﻟﻬﺪف ﻣﻦ ﺗﻠﻚ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ „هﻮ اﻧﺘﺎج اﻃﺎر ﻋﻤﻞ واﻟﺬي ﺳﻮف ﻳﺘﻴﺢ ﻓﻬﻢ‬ ‫واﺿﺢ‪ ،‬دﻗﻴﻖ‪ ،‬ﻋﺎم وﻣﺘﺸﺎرك ﻟﻤﺎ ﺗﻬﺪف اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ إﻟﻰ اﺗﺎﺣﺘﻪ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت‪ .‬وﻣﺎ هﻮ اﻟﻤﺘﻮﻗﻊ ﻣﻦ أن ﺗﻨﺠﺰﻩ‬ ‫اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻻﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔ ﻻﺣﺘﻴﺎﺟﺎت اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪﻳﻦ‪.‬‬ ‫ ﻧﻤﻮذج ﻣﺮﺟﻌﻲ‬‫‪ FRBR‬هﻮ ﻧﻤﻮذج ﻣﺮﺟﻌﻲ‪ .‬اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎت اﻟﻤﻘﺘﺒﺴﺔ ﺑﺄﻋﻠﻰ هﻲ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ اﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻲ ل‪ FRBR‬وﺗﻢ اﻟﺘﺄآﻴﺪ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻠﻲ ﻟﺠﻌﻠﻬﺎ‬ ‫واﺿﺤﺔ ﺟﺪا‪ :‬إﻧﻬﺎ إﻃﺎر ﻋﻤﻞ ﻟﻠﻤﺸﺎرآﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻔﻬﻢ اﻟﻌﺎم‪ .‬وﺗﺘﻴﺢ ﻟﻨﺎ أن ﻳﻜﻮن ﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎ ﻧﻔﺲ اﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻘﻮﻟﻨﺎ وأن ﻧﺸﻴﺮ إﻟﻰ ﻧﻔﺲ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻔﺎهﻴﻢ ﺗﺤﺖ ﻧﻔﺲ اﻟﻤﺴﻤﻴﺎت‪ .‬وهﻰ ﺗﺘﻴﺢ ﻟﻨﺎ أن ﻧﻘﺎرن اﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎت إذا ﺣﺪث وﻟﻢ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺻﻴﺎﻏﺘﻬﺎ ﺑﻨﻔﺲ اﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ‬ ‫ ﻧﻤﻮذج ﻟﻜﻴﺎن – ﻋﻼﻗﺔ‬‫‪ FRBR‬هﻮ ﻧﻤﻮذج ﻟﻜﻴﺎن‪-‬ﻋﻼﻗﺔ‪ .‬إﻧﻪ ﻳﺤﺪد ﻋﺪد ﻣﻦ اﻟﺪرﺟﺎت )„اﻟﻜﻴﺎﻧﺎت“( ﻣﻦ اﻷﺷﻴﺎء واﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺒﻌﺾ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻴﺎق‬ ‫ﻣﻌﻴﻦ ﻟﻔﻬﺮس اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺺ أوﻟﻴﺔ )„ﺻﻔﺎت“( ﺗﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ إﺣﺪى هﺬﻩ اﻟﺪرﺟﺎت‪ ،‬واﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎت اﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﺑﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﺣﺎﻻت هﺬﻩ اﻟﺪرﺟﺎت‪ .‬اﻟﺸﻜﻞ اﻷﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﺟﺪا ل‪ FRBR‬ﻳﺘﻜﻮن ﻣﻦ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ‪ 4‬آﻴﺎﻧﺎت واﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻷوﻋﻴﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‬ ‫)„اﻷﺷﻴﺎء“ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻔﻬﺮس(‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ اﻟﺤﻤﺎل إﻟﻰ اﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮى‪ .‬أوﻟﺌﻚ اﻟﻜﻴﺎﻧﺎت اﻷرﺑﻊ ﺗﻮﺿﺢ اﻟﻤﻌﺎﻧﻲ اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ اﻟﻤﻠﺤﻘﺔ ﺑﻜﻠﻤﺔ „آﺘﺎب“‪.‬‬ ‫ﻓﻲ اﻷﺻﻞ‪ ،‬آﻠﻤﺔ „آﺘﺎب“ ﺗﻌﻨﻲ ﻣﺠﺮد „ﺷﻲء ﻣﻜﺘﻮب“ وﻟﻜﻦ هﻨﺎك ﻋﻠﻰ اﻷﻗﻞ أرﺑﻌﺔ ﻃﺮق ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﻨﻔﻬﻢ ﻣﺎذا ﺗﻐﻄﻲ ﻋﺒﺎرة‬ ‫„ﺷﻰء ﻣﻜﺘﻮب“‪.‬‬ ‫اﻟﻜﺘﺎب ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن ﻳﻜﻮن ﺷﻰء ﻣﺎدي واﻟﺬي ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ اﻟﻨﺺ )ﻟﻘﺪ ﻓﻘﺪت آﺘﺎﺑﻲ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺖ“( هﺬا اﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺮ اﻷوﻟﻲ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أت ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ‬‫ﺑﺘﺼﻮر „اﻟﻨﺴﺨﺔ“ وﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪم ﻧﻤﻮذج ‪ FRBR‬اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺢ وﺣﺪة ﻟﻺﺷﺎرة إﻟﻰ هﺬا اﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ‬ ‫ اﻟﻜﺘﺎب ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن ﻳﻜﻮن ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻷﺷﻴﺎء اﻟﻤﺎدﻳﺔ واﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻧﻔﺲ اﻟﻨﺺ )„ﻳﺠﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ أن أﻃﻠﺐ آﺘﺎب اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺖ“(‬‫وهﺬا اﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺮ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ﻗﺮﻳﺐ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺼﻮر „اﻟﻨﺸﺮ“ وﻟﻜﻦ ﻧﻤﻮذج ‪ FRBR‬ﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪم اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺢ اﻟﺸﺎﻣﻞ „اﻟﻤﻨﺸﻮر“ وﻟﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ أﺟﻞ أن‬ ‫ﻳﻐﻄﻲ اﻟﻤﻮاد اﻟﻐﻴﺮ ﻣﻨﺸﻮرة أﻳﻀﺎ‪.‬‬ ‫ آﺘﺎب ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن ﻳﻜﻮن اﻟﻨﺺ اﻟﻤﻜﺘﻮب )„هﻞ هﺬا اﻟﻨﺺ آﺘﺎب اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺖ اﻻﺻﺪارة اﻷوﻟﻰ أو آﺘﺎب اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺖ اﻹﺻﺪارة‬‫اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ؟“( هﺬا اﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺮ اﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﻳﺘﻜﺎﻓﺊ ﻣﻊ ﺗﺼﻮر „اﻟﻨﺺ“ وﻟﻜﻦ ﻣﺮة أﺧﺮى ﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪم ﻧﻤﻮذج ‪ FRBR‬اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺢ اﻷآﺜﺮ ﺷﻤﻮﻻ‪،‬‬ ‫„اﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ“ ﻣﻦ أﺟﻞ أن ﻳﺸﻴﺮ إﻟﻰ اﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮﻳﺎت اﻟﻐﻴﺮ ﻟﻐﻮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ اﻟﻤﻮﺳﻴﻘﻰ‪ ،‬اﻟﺨﺮاﺋﻂ‪ ،‬اﻟﺼﻮر‪ ،‬اﻟﺦ‪.‬؛ أو‬

‫‪83‬‬

‫ آﺘﺎب ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن ﻳﻜﻮن اﻷﻓﻜﺎر اﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻌﺒﺮ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل اﻟﻨﺺ اﻟﻤﻜﺘﻮب )„إﺑﻦ اﻟﻨﺪﻳﻢ هﻮ ﻣﺆﻟﻒ آﻼ اﻹﺻﺪارﺗﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ آﺘﺎب‬‫اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺖ“(‪ .‬هﺬا اﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺮ اﻟﺮاﺑﻊ ﻳﻨﺸﻰء اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﻨﺺ وﺗﺮﺟﻤﺎﺗﻪ‪ ،‬وﺑﻴﻦ اﻹﺻﺪارات اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﻺﺑﺪاع اﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻲ واﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‬ ‫إﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ أﻧﻬﺎ „ﻧﻔﺲ اﻟﺸﻰء‪ “،‬ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ وﺟﻮد إﺻﺪارات ﻣﺘﻌﺪدة ﻟﻬﺎ؛ وﻳﺸﻴﺮ ﻧﻤﻮذج ‪ FRBR‬إﻟﻰ هﺬا اﻟﺘﺼﻮر ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺢ „ﻋﻤﻞ“ وﻟﻬﺬا ﻧﺠﺪ ﻓﻲ ﻧﻤﻮذج ‪ FRBR‬ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ أوﻟﻰ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻜﻴﺎﻧﺎت‪ :‬اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‪ ،‬اﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﻨﺸﻮر‪ ،‬اﻟﻮﺣﺪة‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻜﻴﺎﻧﺎت ﺗﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﻧﻮﻋﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻜﻴﺎﻧﺎت واﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن ﺗﺨﻠﻖ ﻋﻤﻞ‪ ،‬ﺗﺤﻘﻖ ﺗﻌﺒﻴﺮ‪ ،‬ﺗﻨﺘﺞ أو ﺗﻄﻠﺐ ﻣﻨﺸﻮر‪،‬‬ ‫ﺗﻌﺪل أو ﺗﻘﺘﻨﻲ وﺣﺪة‪ :‬اﻟﺸﺨﺺ واﻟﻬﻴﺌﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﺜﺎﻟﺜﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻜﻴﺎﻧﺎت‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﻜﺲ ﻣﺎذا ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن ﻳﻜﻮن اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻳﺪور ﺣﻮﻟﻪ‪ ،‬وﺗﺘﻀﻤﻦ آﻞ ﻣﺎ ﺳﺒﻖ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ إﻟﻰ أرﺑﻊ آﻴﺎﻧﺎت‬ ‫أﺧﺮى ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن ﺗﺨﺪم ﻓﻘﻂ اﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ ﻋﻦ ﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮع اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‪ :‬ﻣﻔﻬﻮم‪ ،‬ﺷﻲء‪ ،‬ﺣﺪث وﻣﻜﺎن‪.‬‬ ‫آﻞ ﻣﻦ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻜﻴﺎﻧﺎت ﻟﻪ ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺺ ﺗﻤﻴﺰﻩ ﺑﻮاﺳﻄﺔ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ „اﻟﺼﻔﺎت“—ﺑﻤﻌﻨﻰ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺨﺪم ﻓﻲ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ‬ ‫اﻟﻜﻴﺎن‪ .‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ اﻟﻤﺜﺎل‪ ،‬اﻟﺸﻜﻞ اﻟﻤﻨﺸﻮر ﻳﺘﻤﻴﺰ ﻋﻦ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت اﻷﺧﺮى‪ ،‬ﺑﻮاﺳﻄﺔ ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ ﻧﺸﺮﻩ؛ اﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻳﻤﻴﺰﻩ إﺳﻤﻪ‬ ‫اﻟﺬي ﻳﻌﺮف ﺑﻪ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻳﺤﺪد ﻧﻤﻮذج ‪ FRBR‬أﻳﻀﺎ اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻜﻴﺎﻧﺎت‪ -‬آﻤﺎ ﻳﻜﻔﻲ ﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻧﻤﻮذج اﻟﻜﻴﺎن‪-‬اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ‪:‬‬ ‫اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎت ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ وأﺣﺪ ﺗﻌﺒﻴﺮاﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ وأﺣﺪ ﺑﻴﺎﻧﺎﺗﻪ‪ ،‬وﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﺸﻜﻞ اﻟﻤﻨﺸﻮر وأﺣﺪ وﺣﺪاﺗﻪ ﻳﻘﺎل ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ „ﺑﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ“ ﻷن‬ ‫اﻟﺘﻤﺎﺳﻚ اﻟﻌﺎم ﻟﻠﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ﻳﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎت‪ .‬وهﻰ ﺗﻨﻌﻜﺲ ﻓﻲ ﻓﻬﺎرﺳﻨﺎ ﺑﻮاﺳﻄﺔ اﻟﺘﻮﺣﻴﺪ اﻟﻤﺎدي ﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت‬ ‫اﻟﻮﺻﻒ‪ ،‬ﺑﻮاﺳﻄﺔ اﻟﺮﺑﻂ ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ وﻣﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت اﻟﻤﻘﺘﻨﻴﺎت‪ ،‬وأﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎ ﺑﻮاﺳﻄﺔ ﻣﺪاﺧﻞ اﻟﻌﻨﺎوﻳﻦ اﻟﻤﻮﺣﺪة‬ ‫آﻤﺎ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ هﻨﺎ أﻳﻀﺎ „ﻋﻼﻗﺎت ﻣﺴﺆﻟﻴﺔ“ ﺑﻴﻦ آﻴﺎﻧﺎت اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ )اﻷﺷﺨﺎص واﻟﻬﻴﺌﺎت( وأي ﻣﻦ اﻟﻜﻴﺎﻧﺎت اﻟﻤﻨﺘﻤﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻷوﻟﻰ‪ .‬وهﺬﻩ اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎت ﺗﻨﻌﻜﺲ ﻓﻲ ﻓﻬﺎرﺳﻨﺎ ﺑﻮاﺳﻄﺔ ﻣﺪاﺧﻞ اﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻴﻦ‪.‬‬ ‫وﻳﻮﺟﺪ أﻳﻀﺎ „ﻋﻼﻗﺎت ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔ“ ﺑﻴﻦ أي آﻴﺎن ﻓﻲ اﻟﻨﻤﻮذج وﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﻜﻴﺎن اﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ „اﻟﻌﻤﻞ“ ﺑﻌﺒﺎرة أﺧﺮى‪ :‬ﻋﻤﻞ ﻳﺘﺤﺪث ﻋﻦ‬ ‫ﻋﻤﻞ ﺁﺧﺮ‪ ،‬أو ﻋﻦ وﺣﺪة‪ ،‬أو ﻋﻦ هﻴﺌﺔ‪ ،‬أو ﻋﻦ ﻣﻜﺎن‪ ،‬اﻟﺦ‪ .‬وهﺬﻩ اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎت ﺗﻨﻌﻜﺲ ﻓﻲ ﻓﻬﺎرﺳﻨﺎ ﺑﻮاﺳﻄﺔ رؤوس اﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎت‪.‬‬ ‫هﺬﻩ اﻷﻧﻮاع اﻟﺜﻼﺛﺔ اﻷوﻟﻰ ﻟﻠﻌﻼﻗﺎت هﻲ اﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺟﺪا‪ ،‬وﺗﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﻀﺮورة ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻬﺎرس ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺎﺗﻨﺎ‬ ‫وﻻ ﻳﺰال ﻳﻮﺟﺪ‪ ،‬أﻧﻮاع ﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎت أآﺜﺮ ﺗﻌﻘﻴﺪا‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﻋﻼﻗﺎت اﻟﻜﻞ ‪/‬اﻷﺟﺰاء ﺑﻴﻦ اﻷﻋﻤﺎل اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ أو اﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮات اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﻨﻔﺲ‬ ‫اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‪ ،‬أو اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎت اﻟﻔﻜﺮﻳﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﻦ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﻴﻦ؛ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ أﻳﻀﺎ ﻋﻼﻗﺎت اﻟﻜﻞ ‪ /‬اﻷﺟﺰاء ﺑﻴﻦ ﺷﻜﻠﻴﻦ ﻣﻨﺸﻮرﻳﻦ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﻴﻦ أو وﺣﺪﺗﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺘﻴﻦ ﻟﻨﻔﺲ اﻟﻤﻨﺸﻮر؛ وﻳﺤﺪد اﻟﻨﻤﻮذج أﻳﻀﺎ „ﻋﻼﻗﺎت إﻋﺎدة اﻹﻧﺘﺎج“ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﻨﺸﻮرﻳﻦ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﻴﻦ‪ ،‬أو وﺣﺪﺗﻴﻦ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺘﻴﻦ ﻟﻨﻔﺲ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻨﺸﻮر‪ ،‬أو ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﻨﺸﻮر ووﺣﺪة ﻟﻤﻨﺸﻮر ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ‪ .‬آﻞ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎت ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن ﺗﻨﻌﻜﺲ ﻓﻲ ﻓﻬﺎرﺳﻨﺎ آﺮواﺑﻂ ﻓﻌﻠﻴﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت‬ ‫)ﺑﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‪ ،‬اﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ و‪/‬أو ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻼت ﻣﻘﺘﻨﻴﺎت(‪ ،‬ﺗﺘﻴﺢ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪ اﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻲ ﻟﻴﺴﻠﻚ وﻳﺠﺪ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل اﻟﻔﻬﺮس‪ ،‬أو اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎت‬ ‫ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن ﻳﺸﺎر إﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل اﻟﺘﺒﺼﺮات اﻟﻨﺼﻴﺔ واﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺘﻴﺢ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت )ﻣﺜﻞ ﺗﺒﺼﺮة اﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮﻳﺎت أو ﺗﺒﺼﺮة اﻟﺘﺎرﻳﺦ( وﻟﻜﻦ‬ ‫أﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎ ﺗﻘﻴﺪ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪ اﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻲ ﻣﻦ إﻃﻼق ﺑﺤﺚ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻟﻴﺠﺪ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل اﻟﻔﻬﺮس وﻳﺼﻞ إﻟﻰ „اﻟﻬﺪف“ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎت‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻮﺻﻮﻓﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻣﺎ اﻟﺬي ﻟﻴﺲ ‪FRBR‬؟‬ ‫هﻞ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن ﻳﺴﻤﻰ ‪„ FRBR‬ﻧﻤﻮذج ﺑﻴﺎﻧﺎت؟“ إﻧﻪ ﻳﺒﺪو ﻣﻦ اﻟﺼﻔﺎت اﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﺤﺪدهﺎ ﻟﻜﻞ آﻴﺎن وﻟﺤﺎﻻت آﺜﻴﺮة أﻧﻪ أﻋﻢ ﺑﻜﺜﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫أن ﻳﺴﻤﺢ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪاﻣﻪ آﻨﻤﻮذج آﻤﺎ هﻮ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪون اﻟﺤﺎﺟﺔ إﻟﻰ ﺗﻨﻘﻴﺤﻪ‪ .‬اﻟﻌﻨﺎوﻳﻦ آﻤﺜﺎل ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن ﻳﻜﻮن ﻟﻬﺎ أﺷﻜﺎل ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪FRBR ،‬‬ ‫ﻳﺤﺪد ﺻﻔﺎت اﻟﻌﻨﻮان ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻜﻴﺎﻧﺎت اﻟﺜﻼﺛﺔ‪ ،‬اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‪ ،‬اﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ‪ ،‬واﻟﻤﻨﺸﻮر وﻟﻜﻦ هﺬا اﻟﺘﺼﻨﻴﻒ „ﻟﺘﺼﻮر اﻟﻌﻨﻮان“ ﻻ ﻳﻜﻔﻲ أن‬ ‫ﻳﻐﻄﻲ وﻳﺸﺮح آﻞ اﻟﻌﻨﺎوﻳﻦ اﻟﺘﻲ ﻧﺤﺘﺎﺟﻬﺎ ﻓﻌﻠﻴﺎ وﻧﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﺣﺎﻟﻴﺎ‪.‬‬ ‫هﻮ ‪) ISBD‬ﺗﺪوب(‬ ‫هﻞ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن ﻳﺴﻤﻰ ‪„ FRBR‬ﻧﻮع ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺪوب؟“ ﻻ‪ ،‬وﻟﻨﻔﺲ اﻷﺳﺒﺎب ‪ FRBR‬ﻻ ﻳﺤﺪد آﻴﻒ ﺗﺒﻨﻰ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ اﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎت وﻻ‬ ‫آﻴﻒ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﻜﻮن ﺑﻨﺎﺋﻬﺎ ﻣﻔﻬﻮم ﺑﻤﺠﺮد ﻗﺮاءة اﻟﻮﺻﻒ‪ .‬وﻟﻜﻦ‪ FRBR ،‬ﻳﺘﻴﺢ إﻃﺎر ﻋﻤﻞ ﻣﻔﺎهﻴﻤﻲ ﻟﺼﻮر ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ اﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎت‬ ‫وﻳﻌﺮض ﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺗﻬﺎ اﻟﻤﺘﺪاﺧﻠﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫هﻮ آﻮد )ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ( ﻓﻬﺮﺳﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺸﺎﺑﻪ‪ FRBR ،‬ﻻ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن ﻳﻘﺎل ﻋﻠﻴﻪ آﻮد )ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ( ﻟﻠﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ(‪ FRBR .‬ﻟﻴﺲ دﻟﻴﻞ إرﺷﺎدي‪ ،‬وﻻ ﻳﻘﻮل ﻟﻚ آﻴﻒ ﺗﺴﺠﻞ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎ ﻓﻲ إﻃﺎر ﻋﻤﻠﻚ اﻟﻴﻮﻣﻲ‪ FRBR .‬ﻳﻮﺟﺪ آﻤﺴﺘﻮى ﻣﻔﺎهﻴﻤﻲ‪ .‬وذﻟﻚ ﻻ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ‪ ،‬آﻴﻔﻤﺎ آﺎن‪ ،‬أن‬

‫‪84‬‬

‫‪ FRBR‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻪ ﻧﻔﻊ ﻋﻤﻠﻲ‪ .‬ﻧﺤﻦ اﻵن ﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎ اﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ اﻷﻧﻈﻤﺔ واﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻌﻤﻞ ﻓﻌﻠﻴﺎ ﺑﻨﺎء ﻋﻠﻰ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ‪ FRBR‬ﻟﻌﺮض اﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎت‬ ‫اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‪ .‬وﻳﻮﺟﺪ إﺣﺘﻤﺎل ﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺒﻞ آﻮد اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ أن ﻳﻌﻠﻢ ﺑﻮاﺳﻄﺔ اﻟﻤﻔﺎهﻴﻢ اﻟﻤﻮﺿﺤﺔ ﻟﻨﻤﻮذج ‪.FRBR‬‬ ‫ﺑﻌﺾ أﻣﺜﻠﺔ اﻹﺳﺘﺨﺪام‪:‬‬ ‫ﻣﺎذا ﺗﻌﻨﻲ ﻋﺒﺎرة „إﺳﺘﺨﺪام ‪FRBR‬؟“ ﻟﻘﺪ ﻗﻠﺖ ﺗﻮا أن ‪ FRBR‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﻧﻤﻮذج ﺑﻴﺎﻧﺎت‪ ،‬ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ إﺳﺘﺨﺪاﻣﻪ؟“ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻷﻓﻀﻞ‪،‬‬ ‫آﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻧﻤﻮذج وﺳﻴﻂ ﻟﻠﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎت‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﻲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ؛ وﻋﻠﻰ اﻷﺳﻮأ‪ ،‬ﻣﺠﺮد إﺳﺘﺨﺪاﻣﻪ ﺧﻄﺄ آﻨﻤﻮذج ﻟﻠﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎت؛ وﻓﻲ أي اﻷﺣﻮال‪ ،‬ﺑﻮاﺳﻄﺔ‬ ‫وﺿﻊ ﺧﺮﻳﻄﺔ ﻟﺘﺤﻮﻳﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻣﻮﺟﻮد إﻟﻰ ‪ FRBR‬أو ﻣﻦ ‪ FRBR‬إﻟﻰ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺑﻮاﺑﺔ أﺳﻠﻴﺖ ‪Auslit Gateway‬‬ ‫ﺑﻮاﺑﺔ أﺳﻠﻴﺖ آﺎﻧﺖ أول ﻗﺎﻋﺪة ﺑﻴﺎﻧﺎت إﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﺖ ‪ FRBR‬ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺎﻣﻞ‪ .‬وﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ آﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻗﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ أﻧﻬﺎ ﺗﻄﺒﻖ ﻣﻘﺘﺼﺮة‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﻤﻬﻮر اﻟﻨﺼﻮص اﻷدﺑﻴﺔ اﻷﺳﺘﺮاﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬وﻟﻬﺬا آﺎﻧﺖ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻟﺪﻣﺞ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﺘﻌﺪدة‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﺼﺎدر ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎت اﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎت‪،‬‬ ‫وﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﻟﻢ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻣﺒﻨﻴﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺪوب‪ .‬إﻧﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻬﺮس‪ ،‬وﻟﻜﻦ ﻗﺎﻋﺪة ﺑﻴﺎﻧﺎت ﺗﻬﺪف إﻟﻰ إﺗﺎﺣﺔ اﻟﺒﺎﺣﺜﻴﻦ واﻟﻄﻼب ﺑﺄآﺒﺮ آﻢ ﻣﻤﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت ﻋﻦ اﻟﻜﺘﺎب اﻷﺳﺘﺮاﻟﻴﻴﻦ واﻷﻋﻤﺎل اﻷدﺑﻴﺔ اﻷﺳﺘﺮاﻟﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻣﺜﻞ ذﻟﻚ‪ ،‬أﻧﻬﺎ ﺗﺮآﺰ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ وﺗﻌﺮض ﻟﻜﻞ ﻋﻤﻞ آﻞ‬ ‫ﺗﻌﺒﻴﺮاﺗﻪ وأﺷﻜﺎل ﻧﺸﺮﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﻔﺤﺔ وﻳﺐ واﺣﺪة ﺑﺪل ﻣﻦ ﺗﻘﺪﻳﻢ ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻼت ﺑﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪﻳﻦ‪ ،‬آﻤﺎ ﻧﻔﻌﻞ ﻓﻲ ﻓﻬﺎرس‬ ‫ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺎﺗﻨﺎ اﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫‪VIRTUA‬‬ ‫أﻧﺘﺠﺖ ﺷﺮآﺔ ‪ VTLS‬ﻓﻲ ﻋﺎم ‪ 2002‬اﻹﺻﺪارة ‪ 41.0‬ﻣﻦ ﻧﻈﺎم اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺎت ‪ .VIRTUA‬وﻷول ﻣﺮة‪ ،‬ﻳﺤﻘﻖ ﻣﻮرد ﻧﻈﺎم إﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻷي ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﻣﻦ أن ﺗﻨﺘﺞ ﻓﻬﺮس ‪ FRBR‬اﻟﺨﺎص ﺑﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻼت ﻣﺎرك اﻟﻤﻌﺮوﻓﺔ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن ﺗﻘﺴﻢ إﻟﻰ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻳﺎت اﻷرﺑﻌﺔ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻷوﻟﻰ ﻣﻦ آﻴﺎﻧﺎت ‪ ،FRBR‬وأي ﻣﻔﻬﺮس ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن ﻳﻘﺮر ﺗﻜﻮﻳﻦ أﺳﺮ ﺑﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ أآﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ أوﻋﻴﺔ ﻣﻨﻌﺰﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﺷﻜﺮا‬ ‫ﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ ‪ .FRBR‬ﺗﺘﻴﺢ ‪ VIRTUA‬ﻟﻠﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﻌﺎدﻳﺔ و“ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻼت ‪ “FRBR‬ﻟﺘﻌﻴﺶ ﺟﻨﺒﺎ إﻟﻰ ﺟﻨﺐ‪ .‬واﻟﻨﻤﻮذج اﻟﺬي ﻳﺘﺒﻊ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ‬ ‫ﺗﻘﺴﻢ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت هﻮ ﻣﺒﻨﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﺮﻳﻄﺔ ﺗﻮم دﻳﺴﻠﻲ ﻟﺘﺤﻮﻳﻞ ﻣﺎرك ‪ 21‬إﻟﻰ ‪ .FRBR‬أﻳﻤﺎ آﺎن‪ ،‬ﻧﻤﻮذج اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ ﻻ ﻳﺰال ﻣﺒﻨﻲ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ )ﺗﺪوب ‪ (ISBDs‬إن ﻣﺴﺘﻮى ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ ﺷﻜﻞ اﻟﻤﻨﺸﻮرات ﻻ ﻳﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺟﻮهﺮﻳﺎ ﻋﻦ أى ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ ﻗﺪﻳﻤﺔ ﻣﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ‪ISBD‬‬ ‫؛ وﺷﻜﻞ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ ﻻ ﻳﺰال أﺳﺎﺳﺎ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻣﺎرك‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ أن ﺷﻜﻞ ﻣﺎرك ﻣﺨﺰن وﻣﻐﻠﻒ ﻓﻲ ‪ XML‬داﺧﻞ اﻟﻨﻈﺎم‪ ،‬ودون‬‫أن ﻳﺪري اﻟﻤﻔﻬﺮﺳﻮن ﺑﺬﻟﻚ‪.‬‬ ‫وهﺬا اﻟﻤﺜﺎل اﻟﺨﻴﺎﻟﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﺴﺘﻌﺎر ﻣﻦ ﻋﺮض ﺗﻘﺪﻳﻤﻲ ﻟﻜﻠﻮد دﻳﺘﻴﻦ ‪ Claude Détienne‬ﺑﻤﻨﺎﺳﺒﺔ اﻟﻤﺆﺗﻤﺮ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ اﻟﺮاﺑﻊ واﻟﻌﺸﺮون‬ ‫‪) MELCOM‬ﻟﺠﻨﺔ أﻣﻨﺎء ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺎت اﻟﺸﺮق اﻷوﺳﻂ( ﻓﻲ ﻋﺎم ‪ ،2002‬ﻳﻤﻜﻨﻚ أن ﺗﺮى ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺠﺎﻧﺐ اﻷﻳﺴﺮ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺸﺎﺷﺔ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺺ ﺷﺠﺮة „‪ “FRBR‬اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻌﺮض اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻟﻤﻮﺣﺪ ﻟﻠﻌﻤﻞ „أﻟﻒ ﻟﻴﻠﺔ وﻟﻴﻠﺔ‪ ،‬وإﺛﻨﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ إﺻﺪاراﺗﻪ ﺑﻠﻐﺎت ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪،‬‬ ‫وﺗﺴﺠﻴﻼت ﻣﺨﺘﺼﺮ ﻟﺜﻼﺛﺔ ﻣﻦ أﺷﻜﺎل ﻣﻨﺸﻮرات اﻟﻌﻤﻞ وﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺠﺎﻧﺐ اﻷﻳﻤﻦ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺸﺎﺷﺔ ﺗﺠﺪ ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ ﺑﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ آﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﻹﺣﺪى‬ ‫هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﻨﺸﻮرات اﻟﺜﻼﺛﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻊ راﺑﻂ ﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت ﻋﻦ وﺣﺪة واﺣﺪة‪.‬‬ ‫‪OCLC‬‬ ‫إﺳﺘﺜﻤﺮ ‪ OCLC‬ﺟﻬﺪ آﺒﻴﺮ ﻓﻲ إآﺘﺸﺎف إﺣﺘﻤﺎﻻت ‪ FRBR‬ﻟﻌﺪد آﺒﻴﺮ ﺟﺪا ﻣﻦ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‪ .‬وﻃﻮر ‪OCLC‬‬ ‫اﻟﺠﻮرﺗﻢ ﻳﺴﻤﺢ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺤﻮﻳﻞ اﻷوﺗﻮﻣﺎﺗﻴﻜﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻼت ﻣﺎرك اﻟﻘﺪﻳﻤﺔ إﻟﻰ ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻼت ‪.FRBR‬‬ ‫وﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﻣﻨﺘﺠﺎت ل‪ OCLC‬ﻣﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺠﻮرﺗﻢ ‪ FRBR‬وهﻲ ‪ ،Open WorldCat ،xISBN‬و‪( Fiction Finder‬‬ ‫‪ xISBN‬هﻰ ﺧﺪﻣﺔ ﺗﻤﺪ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺮﻗﻴﻤﺎت اﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﻮﺣﺪة ﻟﻠﻜﺘﺎب واﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺤﺪد اﻟﻄﺒﻌﺎت اﻟﻤﺘﻌﺪدة ﻣﻦ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﻟﻮاﺣﺪ‪ .‬وﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﺒﺤﺚ ﻋﻦ‬ ‫‪) ISBN‬ﺗﺪﻣﻚ(‪ ،‬ﺑﻮاﺳﻄﺔ إدﺧﺎل اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ‪ http://labs.oclc.org/xISBN/‬ﻣﺘﺒﻮﻋﺎ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮة ﺑﺮﻗﻢ )ﺗﺪﻣﻚ ‪ ،(ISBN‬ﺗﻌﺮض ﻟﻚ‬ ‫ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺮﻗﻴﻤﺎت اﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﻮﺣﺪة اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﺘﺎب‪ .‬رﺑﻤﺎ ﺗﺘﻌﺠﺐ ﻣﺎذا ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن ﺗﻔﻌﻞ ﺑﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ أوﻟﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺪﻣﻚ ‪ ،ISBN‬ﻓﻲ اﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﺔ‬ ‫ﺧﺪﻣﺔ ‪ xISBN‬ﻣﻦ ‪ OCLC‬ﺗﻬﺪف إﻟﻰ أن ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪم ﺑﻮاﺳﻄﺔ اﻟﻤﺎآﻴﻨﺎت وﻟﻴﺲ اﻟﻨﺎس‪ .‬وإذا آﻨﺖ أﻧﺖ آﺈﻧﺴﺎن‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺗﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ أن ﺗﻔﻌﻞ‬ ‫اﻟﻜﺜﻴﺮ ﺑﻤﺠﺮد ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ )ﺗﺪﻣﻚ ‪ (ISBN‬ﻟﻜﻦ اﻵﻻت ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن ﺗﻔﻌﻞ أﺷﻴﺎء ﻣﺜﻴﺮة ﺟﺪا‪ .‬وﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ اﻟﻤﺜﺎل‪ ،‬إذا ﺑﺤﺜﺖ ﻓﻲ ﺟﻮﺟﻞ أو‬ ‫ﻳﺎهﻮ ﻋﻦ اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎت „ﻣﻌﻠﻮف اﻟﺼﻠﻴﺒﻴﻴﻦ“ ﻣﻊ ﻋﺒﺎرة )داﺧﻞ ﻋﻼﻣﺎت اﻟﺘﻨﺼﻴﺺ( „إﺑﺤﺚ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ“ )أو إﺳﺘﺨﺪم آﺒﺪﻳﻞ‪ ،‬اﻷﻣﺮ‬ ‫‪ ،(site:www.worldcatlibraries.org‬أول ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺗﺤﺼﻞ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ هﻲ ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ ﺑﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ‪ WorldCat‬ﺗﺼﻒ إﺣﺪى‬ ‫اﻟﻄﺒﻌﺎت اﻟﻜﺜﻴﺮة ﻟﻌﻤﻞ أﻣﻴﻦ ﻣﻌﻠﻮف „اﻟﺼﻠﻴﺒﻴﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل ﻋﻴﻮن اﻟﻌﺮب“‪ .‬وﺗﺤﺖ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮف ﺗﻼﺣﻆ آﻠﻤﺔ‬ ‫„ﻃﺒﻌﺎت“ واﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺤﻤﻞ راﺑﻂ ﻧﺸﻂ‪ .‬وﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻀﻐﻂ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺗﺤﺼﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ﻟﻜﻞ اﻟﻄﺒﻌﺎت اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‬

‫‪85‬‬

‫ﻣﻦ ﻋﻤﻞ أﻣﻴﻦ ﻣﻌﻠﻮف‪ ،‬وﻓﻲ ﻟﻐﺎت ﻣﺘﻌﺪدة‪ ،‬واﻟﻤﻮﺟﻮدة ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل ‪ .WorldCat‬وﻳﻤﻜﻨﻚ أن ﺗﺨﺘﺎر ﻣﻦ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ‪ ،‬وﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ‬ ‫ﺗﺤﺼﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺮض ﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ ﻟﻄﺒﻌﺔ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻃﺮح ‪ OCLC‬ﻧﻤﻮذج ﻣﺸﺮوع ﻳﺴﻤﻰ ﺑﺎﺣﺚ اﻟﻘﺼﺺ )‪ (http://fictionfinder.oclc.org‬وﻳﻌﺮض آﻴﻒ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﻋﺮض‬ ‫ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﺑﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ﻷﻋﻤﺎل ﻧﺼﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻘﺼﺺ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﺒﺴﻂ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻟﺠﻮرﺗﻢ ‪ .FRBR‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ اﻟﻤﺜﺎل‪ ،‬اﻟﻄﺒﻌﺎت اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﺮواﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﻧﺠﻴﺐ ﻣﺤﻔﻮظ زﻗﺎق اﻟﻤﺪق ﺗﺮﺗﺐ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ‪ ،‬وﺗﺤﺼﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت ﻋﻦ ﻃﺒﻌﺎت اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻤﺤﺪدة واﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﻜﺎﻣﻠﺔ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﻄﺒﻌﺎت اﻟﻤﻨﻔﺮدة ]ﻣﻜﺘﺐ اﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻓﻲ ‪ OCLC‬ﻟﺪﻳﻪ ﻧﻤﻮذج ﺗﺠﺮﻳﺒﻲ ﻳﺴﻤﻰ ‪ Curiouser‬وﻳﺘﻴﺢ إﺳﺘﺨﺪام أآﺒﺮ ﻟﻤﻔﺎهﻴﻢ ‪FRBR‬‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺤﺼﻮل ﻋﻠﻰ آﻞ أﺷﻜﺎل ﻣﻨﺸﻮرات اﻟﻌﻤﻞ وﺗﻌﺒﻴﺮاﺗﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل ﻋﺮوض ﺻﺪﻳﻘﺔ‪-‬ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪ‪.‬‬ ‫‪RLG‬‬ ‫اﻟﻔﻬﺮس اﻟﻤﺘﺎح أوﻧﻼﻳﻦ ‪) RLG‬ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺎت اﻟﺒﺤﺜﻴﺔ( وﻳﺴﻤﻰ „أﺣﻤﺮﺿﻮءأﺧﻀﺮ“ واﻟﺬي ﻳﻤﻜﻦ اﻟﻮﺻﻮل إﻟﻴﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺧﻼل ‪ http://www.redlightgreen.com‬إﺧﺘﺼﺮ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻳﺎت اﻷرﺑﻌﺔ ل‪ FRBR‬إﻟﻰ إﺛﻨﻴﻦ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ :‬اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‪ ،‬واﻷﺷﻜﺎل‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻨﺸﻮر‪ .‬ﻟﺴﻮء اﻟﺤﻆ‪ ،‬ﻧﻈﺮا ﻟﻌﺪم اﻟﺘﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ ووﺟﻮد درﺟﺎت ﻣﺘﻔﺎوﺗﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺪﻗﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻤﻜﻦ داﺋﻤﺎ أن ﺗﺘﺠﻤﻊ أوﺗﻮﻣﺎﺗﻴﻜﻴﺎ آﻞ اﻷﺷﻜﺎل ﻟﻠﻤﻨﺸﻮر ﺗﺤﺖ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﻟﺬي هﻲ ﻣﻨﻪ )ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻨﺎﺳﺒﺔ هﺬا أﻳﻀﺎ هﻮ اﻟﺤﺎل ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ‬ ‫‪ WorldCat‬و ‪(Fictionfinder‬‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ اﻟﻤﺜﺎل‪ ،‬إذا ﺑﺤﺜﺖ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎت „دﻳﻮان أﺑﻮ ﻧﻮاس“ ﻓﻲ ﻓﻬﺮس أﺣﻤﺮﺿﻮءأﺧﻀﺮ‪ ،‬اﻟﺬي ﺗﺤﺼﻞ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﺠﺮد ﻋﻨﻮان‬ ‫ﻣﻮﺣﺪ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﺗﺤﺘﻪ آﻞ اﻟﻄﺒﻌﺎت اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺸﻌﺮ أﺑﻮ ﻧﻮاس ﻓﻲ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺗﺠﻤﻴﻌﺔ‪ .‬وﻟﻜﻦ ﺗﺠﺪ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎت ﻓﺮﻋﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻄﺒﻌﺎت‪ ،‬آﻤﺜﺎل‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﻀﻐﻂ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺴﻄﺮ اﻷول ﻓﻲ اﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺣﺼﻠﺖ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺗﺤﺼﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺴﻊ ﻃﺒﻌﺎت ﻧﺸﺮت ﺑﻴﻦ ﻋﺎﻣﻰ ‪ 1958‬و ‪ 2002‬ﺑﻠﻐﺘﻴﻦ“‬ ‫وﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻀﻐﻂ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻨﻮان اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‪ ،‬ﺗﺤﺼﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت ﻋﻦ إﺣﺪى ﻃﺒﻌﺎﺗﻪ‪ .‬وﺑﺎﻟﻀﻐﻂ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺒﺎرة „ﺗﺴﻊ ﻃﺒﻌﺎت‪ “،‬ﺗﺤﺼﻞ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ آﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺴﻊ ﻃﺒﻌﺎت‪ ،‬واﻟﺘﻲ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ن ﺗﺨﺘﺎر ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ واﺣﺪة‪ .‬وإﺣﺪى ﻣﻤﻴﺰات ‪ RLG‬هﻮ ﻗﺎﺑﻠﻴﺘﻪ ﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﻢ ﻣﻘﺘﺮﺣﺎت‬ ‫ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪﻳﻦ ﻟﻸﺷﻜﺎل اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻨﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻷﺳﻤﺎء واﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎت ﻟﻠﺒﺤﺚ وﺗﺤﻮﻳﻞ اﻹﺳﺘﺸﻬﺎدات اﻟﻤﺨﺘﺎرة إﻟﻰ أي ﺷﻜﻞ ﻟﻺﺳﺘﺸﻬﺎدات اﻟﺘﻲ‬ ‫ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن ﻳﺮﻳﺪهﺎ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﺑﺎﻷﺷﻜﺎل اﻟﻤﻌﻴﺎرﻳﺔ ﻣﺜﻞ دﻟﻴﻞ ﺷﻴﻜﺎﺟﻮ ﻟﺸﻜﻞ اﻹﺳﺘﺸﻬﺎدات‪.‬‬ ‫اﻟﺘﻄﻮر اﻟﺤﺎﻟﻲ ل‪FRBR‬‬ ‫‪) FRAR‬اﻟﻤﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎت اﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻹﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ(‬ ‫ﻳﺮآﺰ ‪ FRBR‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺤﺘﻮى اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ﻓﻘﻂ )ﻣﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﺎرض ﻣﻊ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻹﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ(‪ ،‬وﻧﻘﺎط اﻹﺗﺎﺣﺔ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‪ ،‬وﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻻ ﻳﺬهﺐ إﻟﻰ ﺗﻔﺼﻴﻼت اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻹﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ‪ .‬وﻟﻬﺬا اﻟﺴﺒﺐ اﻧﺸﺌﺖ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺗﺴﻤﻰ‬ ‫‪) FRANAR‬اﻟﻤﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎت اﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﻴﺔ واﻟﺘﺮﻗﻴﻢ ﻟﻠﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻹﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ( ﻋﺎم ‪ 1999‬ﺗﺤﺖ رﻋﺎﻳﺔ ﻣﺸﺘﺮآﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺴﻢ اﻟﻀﺒﻂ‬ ‫اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻤﻲ وﻣﺎرك اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ )‪ UBCIM‬اﻟﺤﺎﻟﻲ(‪ .‬اﻟﺸﺮوط اﻟﺜﻼﺛﺔ اﻷوﻟﻰ ﻟﻬﺪف إﻧﺸﺎء اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻋﻤﻞ ‪FRANAR‬‬ ‫هﻰ „ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ اﻟﻤﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎت اﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻹﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ‪ ،‬وﺗﻜﻤﻠﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﻟﺬي أﺳﺴﺘﻪ ‪ .FRBR‬ﺗﻮم دﻳﺴﻠﻲ أﺛﺒﺖ أﻧﻪ ﻣﻌﻴﻦ ﺟﺪا ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻧﻤﻮذج ‪„ FRBR‬اﻟﺸﺨﺺ“ و „اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺔ‪ “،‬اﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﻤﺜﻠﻮا ﻓﻲ ‪FRBR‬ﻋﻠﻰ أﻧﻬﻢ ﻣﺪاﺧﻞ ﻓﻘﻂ أﺻﺒﺤﻮا اﻵن ﻟﻬﻢ ﻧﻤﻮذج‬ ‫ﻣﺘﻜﺎﻣﻞ‪ ،‬واﻟﻜﻴﺎن „أﺳﺮة“ ﺗﻢ إﺿﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻧﻈﺮا ﻷهﻤﻴﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ اﻷرﺷﻴﻒ‪.‬‬ ‫‪) FRSAR‬اﻟﻤﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎت اﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻹﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎت(‬ ‫اﻟﺨﺼﺎﺋﺺ اﻟﻤﻤﻴﺰة ﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻋﻼﻗﺎت اﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎت ﻟﻤﺢ إﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻓﻲ ‪ ،FRBR‬آﻤﺎ ﻟﻢ ﻳﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻌﻬﺎ ﺗﻔﺼﻴﻠﻴﺎ ﻓﻲ ‪ .FRAR‬ﻟﻬﺬا‬ ‫اﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻗﺴﻢ اﻟﻀﺒﻂ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻲ ﻟﻼﻓﻼ ﻓﻲ أﻏﺴﻄﺲ ‪ 2005‬ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ دراﺳﺔ ﺛﺎﻟﺜﺔ‪ ،‬واﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻜﻮن ﻣﺴﺌﻮﻟﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺗﻮﺳﻊ‬ ‫ﻟﻨﻤﻮذج ‪ FRBR/FRAR‬ﻣﻦ أﺟﻞ أن ﻳﻮﺿﻊ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺤﺴﺒﺎن اﻟﺘﺼﻨﻴﻒ واﻟﺘﻜﺸﻴﻒ‪.‬‬ ‫وهﺬا اﻟﻨﻤﻮذج اﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪ ﺳﻮف ﻳﺴﻤﻰ ‪) FRSAR‬اﻟﻤﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎت اﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻹﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎت( ﻣﻊ وﺟﻮد ‪،FRBR‬‬ ‫‪ ،FRSAR ،FRAR‬ﻳﻜﻮن ﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎ أﺧﻴﺮا ﻧﻤﻮذج آﺎﻣﻞ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت اﻟﺘﻲ ﻧﻀﻌﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻓﻬﺎرس اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺎت‪.‬‬ ‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ‪FRBR‬‬ ‫‪ FRBR‬ﻻ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ أن ﻳﻈﻞ آﻤﺎ هﻮ اﻵن داﺋﻤﺎ وإﻟﻰ اﻷﺑﺪ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺗﻘﺮر ﻓﻲ ﻋﺎم ‪ 2003‬أن ﺗﻜﻮن هﻨﺎك ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺔ‪ ،‬وﺗﻢ ﺗﺸﻜﻴﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﺗﻨﺘﺴﺐ إﻟﻰ اﻻﻓﻼ‪ .‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ إﻟﻰ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻋﻤﻞ أﺧﺮى ﺗﻢ ﺗﺸﻜﻴﻠﻬﺎ ﻋﺎم ‪ ،2005‬ﻣﻦ أﺟﻞ ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪة ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ‬ ‫ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ‪ FRBR‬ﻓﻲ اﺳﺘﻜﺘﺸﺎف ﺻﻌﻮﺑﺎت ﻓﻬﻢ ﻧﻤﻮذج „اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎت“ واﻟﺘﻲ هﻰ أﺷﻜﺎل اﻟﻤﻨﺸﻮرات اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻀﻢ أآﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻤﻞ‪،‬‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺼﺎدر اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺮة‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﻨﻔﺮدات ﻣﺘﻌﺪدة اﻷﺟﺰاء‪ ،‬وﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎت اﻟﻜﻞ اﻟﺠﺰء اﻷﺧﺮى‪...‬‬ ‫‪ FRBR‬وهﺬا اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع ‪„ 5‬ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎت ﻟﻼهﺘﻤﺎم“ واﻟﺘﻲ أﺻﺒﺤﺖ ‪(...6‬‬

‫‪86‬‬

‫ﻏﺪا‪ ،‬ﺳﻮف ﺗﺪﻋﻮن ﻟﻠﻌﻤﻞ „ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎت اﻻهﺘﻤﺎم“ واﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻢ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪهﺎ ﻗﺒﻞ هﺬا اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع‪ .‬وﻓﻲ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻦ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﻴﻦ ﻟﺨﺒﺮاء اﻻﻓﻼ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ آﺎن هﻨﺎك ﺧﻤﺲ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎت ﻋﻤﻞ‪ ،‬أﺳﻤﺎء اﻷﺷﺨﺎص‪ ،‬أﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺎت‪ ،‬اﻟﻌﻨﺎوﻳﻦ اﻟﻤﻮﺣﺪة واﻟﺘﺄﺷﻴﺮة اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﻮﻋﺎء‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﺘﺴﻠﺴﻼت‪ ،‬واﻷﺷﻜﺎل ﻣﺘﻌﺪدة اﻷﺟﺰاء )اﻟﻤﻜﻮﻧﺎت ﻓﻲ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎت(‪ .‬هﻨﺎك ﻓﻌﻠﻴﺎ ‪ 6‬ﻣﻨﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻣﻮﺿﻮع‬ ‫اﻟﺘﺄﺷﻴﺮة اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﺎء وﻣﻮﺿﻮع اﻟﻌﻨﺎوﻳﻦ اﻟﻤﻮﺣﺪة ﺗﻢ دﻣﺠﻬﻢ ﺗﺤﺖ ﻣﻮﺿﻮع إهﺘﻤﺎم واﺣﺪ‪ .‬وهﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎت اﻟﺴﺖ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن‬ ‫ﺗﻨﻈﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺛﻼث ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎت رﺋﻴﺴﻴﺔ‪„ :‬اﻟﻤﺴﻤﻴﺎت‪„ “،‬اﻷﻧﻮاع‪ “،‬و „اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎت‪ “،‬وﻟﻨﻠﻘﻲ ﻧﻈﺮة ﺳﺮﻳﻌﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ آﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺿﻮء‬ ‫‪FRBR‬‬ ‫„اﻟﻤﺴﻤﻴﺎت“‬ ‫أﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻴﻦ اﻷﺷﺨﺎص‬ ‫اﻟﺼﻔﺎت اﻟﻤﺤﺪدة ﺑﻮاﺳﻄﺔ ‪ FRBR‬ﻟﻜﻴﺎن اﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺗﻤﻴﺰ ﺑﻴﻦ „اﻻﺳﻢ“ اﻟﺸﺨﺺ و“ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ‪ “،‬اﻟﺸﺨﺺ أﻟﻘﺎﺑﻪ و“ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪاﺗﻪ اﻷﺧﺮى“‬ ‫ﻓﻌﻠﻴﺎ‪ ،‬هﺬﻩ هﻰ آﻞ اﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻜﻮن ﻣﺪﺧﻞ اﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‪ ،‬وهﻰ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺄآﻴﺪ ﺗﻜﻮن آﺎﻓﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻏﺮاض‬ ‫‪ ،FRBR‬أن ﻳﺤﺪد ﻓﻘﻂ ﺻﻔﺔ واﺣﺪة‪„ :‬ﻣﺪﺧﻞ“‪ .‬ﻧﻤﻮذج اﻟﻤﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎت اﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ ‪ FRAR‬ﺗﻄﺮح ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎت‬ ‫آﺎﻧﺖ ﺧﺎرج ﺣﺴﺒﺎن ‪ :FRBR‬هﻞ أﻣﺜﻠﺔ آﻴﺎن اﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻣﻔﺘﺮض أن ﺗﻜﻮن ﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻓﻌﻠﻲ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ اﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﻲ‪ ،‬أو „ﺷﻰء“ أﺧﺮ‪،‬‬ ‫وﻣﺎ هﻮ؟ إﻧﻨﻰ أﻋﻨﻲ‪ :‬هﻞ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن ﻳﻤﺜﻞ ﺷﺨﺺ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺘﻴﻦ ﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﻟﻜﻴﺎن اﻟﺸﺨﺺ؛ وﺑﺎﻟﻤﻘﺎﺑﻞ ‪ ،‬هﻞ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﻦ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻴﻴﻦ‬ ‫أن ﻳﻤﺜﻠﻮا ﻓﻲ ﻓﻬﺮس ﻋﺎﻟﻤﻲ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ واﺣﺪة ﻓﻘﻂ ﻟﻨﻔﺲ آﻴﺎن اﻟﺸﺨﺺ؟ إن ﻧﻤﻮذج ‪ ،FRAR‬ﻳﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻷﻧﺠﻠﻮ‬ ‫أﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ ، AACR2‬وﻳﺤﺪد ﺗﺼﻮر ﻟﻠﻬﻮﻳﺔ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‪ ،‬وﻣﻌﻨﻰ ذﻟﻚ‪ :‬هﺬا وﺳﻴﻂ ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ اﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﻲ واﻟﻔﻬﺮس اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻤﻲ‪.‬‬ ‫هﺬا ﻓﻌﻠﻴﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﻮن آﻴﺎن اﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻋﻨﻪ‪ .‬إن اﻟﺸﺨﺺ اﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن ﻳﻜﻮن ﻟﻪ هﻮﻳﺎت ﺑﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ﻣﺘﻌﺪدة )آﻤﺎ هﻮ اﻟﺤﺎل ﻓﻲ‬ ‫اﻷﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻌﺎرة(‪ ،‬آﻤﺎ أن ﻋﺪة أﺷﺨﺎص ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﻴﻦ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن ﻳﺪﻣﺠﻮا ﻣﻌﺎ ﻓﻲ هﻮﻳﺔ ﺑﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ واﺣﺪة )آﻤﺎ هﻮ اﻟﺤﺎل ﻓﻲ‬ ‫اﻷﺳﺮات واﻷﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻌﺎرة اﻟﻤﺸﺘﺮآﺔ‪ ،‬وﻟﻜﻦ أﻳﻀﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻋﺪم اﻟﺘﻤﻴﻴﺰ ﺑﻴﻦ اﻷﺳﻤﺎء(‪ .‬إن آﻴﺎن اﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻓﻲ ‪ FRBR‬ﻻ‬ ‫„ﻳﺘﺪاﺧﻞ“ ﺑﺎﻟﻀﺮورة ﻣﻊ ﻣﺎ إﻋﺘﺪﻧﺎ أن ﻧﻔﻬﻤﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ أﻧﻪ „ﺷﺨﺺ“ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ اﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﻲ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻓﻲ ﻣﻌﻈﻢ اﻟﺤﺎﻻت ﻧﺠﺘﻬﺪ ﻟﻀﺒﻂ اﻟﻬﻮﻳﺎت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‪ ،‬وذﻟﻚ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ‪ :‬أﻧﻨﻨﺎ ﻧﺠﺘﻬﺪ أن ﻧﻜﻮن واﻋﻴﻦ ﺟﺪا ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ هﻮﻳﺎت‬ ‫ﺑﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﻨﻔﺲ اﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ اﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﻲ )وﻓﻲ هﺬﻩ اﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﻧﺮﻳﺪ أن ﻧﺮى رﺑﻄﺎ ﺑﻴﻦ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻬﻮﻳﺎت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ(‪،‬‬ ‫وﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ هﻮﻳﺔ ﺑﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ واﺣﺪة ﻷﺷﺨﺎص ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﻴﻦ اﻷﺳﺮات واﻷﺳﻤﺎء واﻷﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻌﺎرة اﻟﻤﺸﺘﺮآﺔ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن ﺗﻀﺒﻂ‪،‬‬ ‫اﻷﺳﻤﺎء ﻏﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﻸﺷﺨﺎص ﺗﺪﻣﺞ ﻣﻊ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ وﻻ ﺗﻤﻴﺰهﺎ ﻓﺮوق‪ .‬واﻟﺴﺆال هﻨﺎ هﻮ‪ :‬إﻟﻰ أي ﺣﺪ هﺬا اﻟﻨﻘﺺ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻀﺒﻂ‬ ‫ﻳﻜﻮن ﻣﻘﺒﻮل؟ وهﻞ ﻳﻜﻮن ﻣﻘﺒﻮﻻ ﻓﻲ آﻞ اﻷﺣﻮال؟ هﻞ ﻟﻪ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺟﻮهﺮي ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻨﻮاﺣﻲ اﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻟﻔﻬﺎرﺳﻨﺎ وﻣﻦ أﺟﻞ ﻣﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪﻳﻨﺎ؟‬ ‫وهﻞ ﻳﺸﺘﻜﻮن ﻣﻦ ذﻟﻚ؟ هﻞ ﺗﺼﻮر „اﻟﻬﻮﻳﺔ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ“ )آﻐﺨﺘﻼف ﻋﻦ ﺗﺼﻮر اﻟﺸﺨﺺ اﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ( ﻳﺴﺎﻋﺪ أو ﻳﺤﻴﺮ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪ اﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻲ؟ إﻧﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺄآﻴﺪ ﻳﺠﺘﻬﺪ ﻹﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻹﺳﻢ اﻟﺬي ﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﻪ اﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻨﺸﻮراﺗﻪ‪ ،‬واﻟﺬي ﻣﺎ ﻳﺮاﻩ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪ اﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻲ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﻣﺨﺰن ﻟﻠﻜﺘﺐ أو ﻋﻠﻰ آﺘﺎب إﺳﺘﻌﺎرﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺻﺪﻳﻖ أو ﻣﻜﻨﺘﺒﺔ – وﺿﻊ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪ أوﻻ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻤﺎ ﻳﺤﺘﻤﻞ أن ﻳﻌﺮﻓﻪ‪ .‬ﻟﻬﺬا ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺒﻊ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻳﻮﺟﺪ إﺣﺎﻻت ﻣﻦ اﻷﺷﻜﺎل اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﻸﺳﻤﺎء‪.‬‬ ‫أﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺎت‬ ‫إﻧﻪ ﻧﻔﺲ اﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮع اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ .‬إن ﺻﻔﺎت ‪ FRBR‬ﻟﻜﻴﺎن اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺔ‪ ،‬آﺎن ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن ﺗﺘﻐﻴﺮ ﻓﻌﻠﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ أﺟﻞ أﻏﺮاض ‪ FRBR‬اﻟﻤﺤﺪدة‪،‬‬ ‫إﻟﻰ آﻴﺎن واﺣﺪ ﻓﻘﻂ „اﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ‪ “،‬وهﻨﺎ أﻳﻀﺎ‪ ،‬آﻴﺎن اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺔ ﻻ ﻳﻮازي هﻴﺌﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ اﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﻲ‪ ،‬وﻟﻜﻦ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺼﻮر „اﻟﻬﻮﻳﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻲ“ آﻤﺎ ﺗﺤﺪدهﺎ اﻟﻤﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎت اﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻹﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ ‪ FRAR‬وﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻷﻧﺠﻠﻮ‪-‬أﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ؟‪ .‬هﻞ‬ ‫آﻞ إﺳﻢ ﻳﺘﻐﻴﺮ ﻳﻌﻜﺲ ﺗﺤﻮل ﻟﻠﻬﻴﺌﺔ إﻟﻰ هﻴﺌﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪة؟ هﻞ آﻞ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﻟﻼﺳﻢ ﻳﻨﺘﺞ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻟﻠﻬﻮﻳﺔ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‪ ،‬أو ﻳﺠﺐ أن‬ ‫ﺗﺴﺠﻞ آﻞ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮات اﻷﺳﻤﺎء آﺈﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻟﻨﻔﺲ اﻟﻬﻮﻳﺔ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷن اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪ اﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻲ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن ﻳﻜﻮن أآﺜﺮ إﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔ ﻟﺘﺼﻮر اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﺑﻤﺮور اﻟﺰﻣﻦ‪ ،‬أآﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺘﺤﻮﻻت اﻟﻌﺎﺑﺮة ﻟﻬﺎ؟ هﻞ ﻧﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻨﻈﺮ إﻟﻰ اﻟﻤﺆﺗﻤﺮات ﻋﻠﻰ أﻧﻬﺎ „هﻴﺌﺎت‪ “،‬ﻓﻲ اﻟﻮﻗﺖ‬ ‫اﻟﺬي ﻳﻘﺘﺮﺑﻮا ﻓﻲ ‪ FRBR‬إﻟﻰ ﺗﺼﻮر „اﻟﺤﺪث‪ “،‬ﻣﻌﻈﻢ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﻔﺎهﻴﻢ اﻟﻘﺪﻳﻤﺔ ﺗﺘﻄﻮر ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﺴﺘﻜﺸﻒ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻨﻤﺎذج‪.‬‬ ‫اﻟﻌﻨﺎوﻳﻦ اﻟﻤﻮﺣﺪة‬ ‫ﺻﻔﺎت اﻟﻌﻨﻮان ﺗﺤﺪد ﻓﻲ ‪ FRBR‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺛﺎﻟﺜﺔ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻳﺎت‪ :‬اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‪ ،‬اﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ‪ ،‬وأﺷﻜﺎل اﻟﻤﻨﺸﻮرات‪ .‬اﻟﻤﻠﺤﻖ ‪ A‬ﻓﻲ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺮ ‪FRBR‬‬ ‫اﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻲ ﻳﻘﺮر ﺑﻮﺿﻮح أن ﻋﻨﻮان اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن ﻳﻜﻮن ﻋﻨﻮان ﻣﻮﺣﺪ أو اﻟﻌﻨﻮان ﻧﻔﺴﻪ؛ وﻟﻜﻦ ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻗﺎﻋﺪة ﻋﻠﻰ اﻹﻃﻼق ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﻋﻨﻮان اﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﻮان أﺷﻜﺎل اﻟﻤﻨﺸﻮرات ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن ﻳﻜﻮن اﻟﻌﻨﻮان ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻟﻤﻮازي‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﻮان ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﻮان ﻣﻜﺘﻮب‬ ‫ﺑﺤﺮوف ﻟﻐﺔ أﺧﺮى )وهﺬﻩ اﻟﻌﻨﺎوﻳﻦ آﻠﻬﺎ ﻣﻨﺴﻮﺧﺔ(‪ ،‬أو ﻋﻨﻮان ﻣﻔﺘﺎﺣﻲ )وهﻮ ﻋﻨﻮان ﻳﻀﻌﻪ اﻟﻤﻔﻬﺮس(‬ ‫اﻟﻌﻨﻮان ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺗﺒﻌﺎ ﻟﺬﻟﻚ أن ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﻜﻴﺎﻧﻲ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ وأﺷﻜﺎل اﻟﻤﻨﺸﻮرات‪ ،‬وﻟﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﻻ ﻧﻌﺮف ﻣﻦ ‪ FRBR‬ﻣﺎذا ﻳﻜﻮن ﻋﻨﻮان‬ ‫اﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ‪.‬‬ ‫أﻋﺘﻘﺪ أﻧﻪ ﺟﺪاﻟﻲ وﻣﺪرك أن ﻧﻘﺮر أن ﻋﻨﻮان اﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ ﻳﺘﻜﻮن ﻓﻌﻠﻴﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻨﻮان اﻟﻌﻤﻞ آﻤﺎ أﻧﺘﺞ ﺑﻮاﺳﻄﺔ اﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻻﺿﺎﻓﺔ إﻟﻰ‬ ‫ﺗﻀﻤﻨﻪ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ أرى آﻤﺎ ﺗﺤﺪدهﺎ آﻴﺎﻧﺎت اﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ اﻷﺧﺮى‪ .‬إن ﻏﻴﺎب وﺟﻮد أي ﻗﺎﻋﺪة ﻟﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻜﻮن ﻣﻨﻪ ﻋﻨﻮان اﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ ﻳﺸﻴﺮ إﻟﻰ أﻧﻨﺎ‬ ‫ﺣﺎﻟﻴﺎ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎ أدوات ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮى اﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ أن اﻟﻜﺜﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻌﻨﺎوﻳﻦ اﻟﻤﻮﺣﺪة ﺗﺘﻴﺢ ﻓﻌﻼ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ اﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ‪،‬‬

‫‪87‬‬

‫وﻟﻜﻦ ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻧﻈﺎم‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﻓﻬﺎرس اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺎت‪ ،‬ﻳﺤﺪد وﻳﺸﻴﺮ ﺑﺪﻗﺔ إﻟﻰ اﻟﺘﺮﺟﻤﺎت أو اﻻﺻﺪارات اﻟﻤﺤﺪدة ﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻧﺼﻲ ﻣﻌﻴﻦ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪات اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺼﻮﺗﻴﺔ ﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻣﻮﺳﻴﻘﻲ ﻣﻌﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪات ﻣﻘﺮرة ﻟﻔﻦ ﺣﻔﺮ ﻣﻌﻴﻦ‪ ،‬اﻟﺦ‪ .‬هﻞ ﻳﺠﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪﻧﺎ ﻟﻠﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ أن ﺗﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﺷﺮوط ﻟﻬﺬا اﻟﻨﻈﺎم؟ وإذا ﺗﻢ ذﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﻸي اﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ‪ ،‬وﺑﺄي ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ‪ ،‬وآﻴﻒ ﻳﻜﻮن ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﺤﻮ ﺗﺎم ﻻ ﻏﻨﻰ ﻋﻨﻪ أن‬ ‫ﻧﺴﺘﺸﻬﺪ ‪ /‬ﻧﺸﻴﺮ إﻟﻰ اﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﻌﻴﻦ‪ ،‬إﻣﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل دور ﻣﺪﺧﻞ اﻟﻌﻨﻮان أو ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل دور رأس اﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮع‪.‬‬ ‫„اﻷﻧﻮاع“‬ ‫‪) GMDs‬اﻟﺘﺄﺷﻴﺮة اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﺎء(‬ ‫اﻟﺘﺄﺷﻴﺮات اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﺎء ﻟﻢ ﺗﺬآﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺮ ‪ FRBR‬اﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻲ‪ .‬أﺣﺪ اﻷﺳﺒﺎب أن ﻣﺎ ﻧﻌﺮﻓﻪ آﺘﺄﺷﻴﺮة ﻋﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﺎء ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل‬ ‫‪ ISBD‬هﻮ ﻣﺰﻳﺞ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺼﻒ اﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮى وأﺧﺮى ﺗﺼﻒ اﻟﻮﻋﺎء اﻟﺤﺎﻣﻞ ﻟﻬﺬا اﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮى – اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﻣﺴﺘﻮى اﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ )اﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮى( وﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮى )اﻟﺸﻜﻞ اﻟﻤﻨﺸﻮر(‪ .‬وهﺬﻩ آﺎﻧﺖ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻣﻼﺋﻤﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬وﻟﻜﻦ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ‪ .‬رﺑﻤﺎ‬ ‫ﻳﻨﻘﺺ ‪ FRBR‬وﺻﻒ „اﻷﻧﻮاع“ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ اﻷﻧﻮاع اﻟﺜﻼﺛﺔ اﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ :‬اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‪ ،‬اﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ‪ ،‬اﻟﺸﻜﻞ اﻟﻤﻨﺸﻮر‪ .‬رﺑﻤﺎ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺬهﺐ إﻟﻴﻪ ﻋﻘﻮﻟﻨﺎ‬ ‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﺘﺤﺪث ﻋﻦ اﻟﺘﺄﺷﻴﺮة اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﺎء ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن ﻳﻜﻮن دﻣﺞ ﻟﻬﺬﻩ اﻷﻧﻮاع اﻟﺜﻼﺛﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻼ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ اﻟﻤﺜﺎل )هﺬﻩ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻣﻘﺘﺮﺣﺎت‪،‬‬ ‫وأﻋﺮف أﻧﻬﺎ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺛﺎﺑﺘﺔ ﺟﺪا(‬ ‫ﻋﻤﻞ ﻧﺼﻲ – ﻣﻌﺒﺮ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻮﺳﻴﻘﻰ –ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﺎدي‬ ‫ﻋﻤﻞ ﻧﺼﻲ – ﻣﻌﺒﺮ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺑﻜﻠﻤﺎت ﻣﻜﺘﻮﺑﺔ – ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺨﻄﻮط‬ ‫ﻋﻤﻞ ﻧﺼﻲ – ﻣﻌﺒﺮ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻣﻮز – ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎدة ﻣﻄﺒﻮﻋﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﻤﻞ ﻣﻮﺳﻴﻘﻲ – ﻣﻌﺒﺮ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺼﻮت – ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺼﺪر اﻟﻜﺘﺮوﻧﻲ ﻣﺘﺎح أوﻧﻼﻳﻦ‬ ‫وﻓﻲ ﺑﻌﺾ اﻷﺣﻴﺎن ﻳﻜﻮن ﻣﺴﺘﻮى اﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ ﻣﺤﺬوف‪:‬‬ ‫ﻋﻤﻞ ﺧﺮاﺋﻄﻲ – ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺼﺪر اﻟﻜﺘﺮوﻧﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ أوﻧﻼﻳﻦ‬ ‫ﻋﻤﻞ ﺳﻴﻨﻤﺎﺋﻲ – ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﺎدي‬ ‫ﻋﻤﻞ ﻣﺘﻌﺪد اﻟﻮﺳﺎﺋﻂ – ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﻮاﻣﻞ ﻣﺎدﻳﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺸﻜﻠﺔ أﻧﻨﺎ ﻧﻮد أن ﺗﻜﻮن اﻟﺘﺄﺷﻴﺮات اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﺎء ﻣﺨﺘﺼﺮة ﺑﻘﺪر اﻹﻣﻜﺎن‪ .‬آﻞ اﻟﺘﺄﺷﻴﺮات اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﺎء اﻟﻤﻘﺘﺮﺣﺔ هﻰ ﻃﻮﻳﻠﺔ‬ ‫ﺟﺪا‪.‬‬ ‫„اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎت“‬ ‫ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎت اﻟﺪورﻳﺎت وﻣﺘﻰ ﻧﻌﻤﻞ ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪة‬ ‫ﻣﺮة أﺧﺮى‪ ،‬إن ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎت اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ هﻲ ﺗﻌﺘﺒﺮ رﺑﻂ ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﻤﺴﻤﻴﺎت وﺟﻮهﺮ اﻟﻜﻴﺎﻧﺎت اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺤﻤﻞ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﺴﻤﻴﺎت‪ .‬هﻞ آﻞ‬ ‫إﺧﺘﻼف ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﻨﻮان ﻳﺤﻤﻞ إﺧﺘﻼف‪ ،‬وﻋﻤﻞ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻳﺨﺮج ﻋﻦ اﻟﻤﺼﺎدر اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺮة؟ هﻞ إﺧﺘﻼف اﻟﻌﻨﻮان ﻳﺆﺛﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮى ﺷﻜﻞ‬ ‫اﻟﻨﺸﺮ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬أو ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮى اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺼﺎدر اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺮة؟ هﻞ ﻳﺤﺪد اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻟﻤﻔﺘﺎﺣﻲ اﻟﻤﺼﺪر اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ أﻧﻪ ﻋﻤﻞ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ أﻧﻪ ﺗﻌﺒﻴﺮ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ أﻧﻪ ﻣﻨﺸﻮر ﻣﺎدي؟ وﻟﻤﺎذا ﻳﺘﻢ دﻣﺞ إﺳﻢ ﻣﺆﺳﺲ اﻟﺪورﻳﺔ ﻣﻊ اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻟﻤﻔﺘﺎﺣﻲ آﺤﺎﺷﻴﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻗﻮﺳﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫اﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ أﻧﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻸﻋﻤﺎل اﻷﺧﺮى ﻧﻌﻤﻞ ﻟﻬﺎ ﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﻣﺆﻟﻒ‪ -‬ﻋﻨﻮان؟‬ ‫وﻟﻤﺎذا ﻻ ﻧﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻊ اﻟﻌﻨﺎوﻳﻦ اﻟﻤﻔﺘﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ وﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ؟ وﻟﻤﺎذا ﻻ ﻧﻌﻤﻞ ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻼت‬ ‫ﺑﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺼﺎدر اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺮة‪ ،‬وﺗﺴﺠﻴﻼت إﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺎرآﺎت اﻟﻤﺴﺠﻠﺔ‪ ،‬وهﻲ إﻟﻰ ﺣﺪ آﺒﻴﺮ ﻗﺮﻳﺒﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺼﺎدر اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺮة؟ هﻞ‬ ‫هﻮ ﻣﺒﺮر ﻟﻠﻜﻞ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ ﺑﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺪورﻳﺎت؟ آﺎن هﻨﺎك إﻗﺘﺮاﺣﺎت ﻹآﺘﺸﺎف إﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ إﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻹﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ ﺑﺪﻻ‬ ‫ﻟﻬﺎ‪ ،‬وﻟﺬﻟﻚ أوﺟﺪ ﻧﻤﻮذج ‪ FRBR‬ﻓﻜﺮ آﺜﻴﺮ ﺣﻮل هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﻔﺎهﻴﻢ‪.‬‬ ‫اﻟﺒﻨﻰ ﻣﺘﻌﺪدة اﻷﺟﺰاء‬ ‫إﻧﻪ ﻳﺤﺪث أﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎ أن ﻳﺤﺘﻮي ﻣﻄﺒﻮع واﺣﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ أآﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻓﺮدي‪ ،‬هﻞ اﻟﻐﺮض ﻣﻦ ﻓﻬﺎرس اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺎت إﻣﺪاد اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪﻳﻦ –‬ ‫اﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺑﺈﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ و إﺳﺘﺮﺟﺎع ﻣﻄﺒﻮع ﻣﺎ آﻤﺠﻤﻮع‪ ،‬أو ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ وإﺳﺘﺮﺟﺎع ﻋﻨﻮان ﻣﺎ ﻓﻲ آﻞ إﺣﺘﻤﺎﻻت ﺷﻜﻠﻪ اﻟﻤﻨﺸﻮر؟‬

‫‪88‬‬

‫آﺎن ﻳﻌﺮف هﺬا اﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮع ﻓﻲ‪ 39‬اﻟﺴﺘﻴﻨﻴﺎت آﻤﺠﺎدﻟﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ „اﻟﻮﺣﺪة اﻷدﺑﻴﺔ“ ﺗﻌﻨﻲ‪ ،‬اﻟﻌﻤﻞ( و“اﻟﻮﺣﺪة اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ“ )ﺗﻌﻨﻲ‪ ،‬ﺷﻜﻞ‬ ‫اﻟﻨﺸﺮ(‪ .‬ﻓﻲ ﻣﺤﺎﺿﺮة ﻗﺮﻳﺒﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ إﻟﻴﻨﻮى‪ ،‬ﻗﺎﻟﺖ ﺑﺎرﺑﺎرا ﺗﻴﻠﻴﺖ „اﻷن‪ ،‬هﺬا اﻟﺠﺪل ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻨﺎﻟﺴﺐ‪ “،‬ﻷﻧﻨﺎ „ﻻ ﻧﺤﺘﺎج أن ﻧﻔﻀﻞ‬ ‫اﻟﻮﺣﺪة اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ أو اﻟﻮﺣﺪة اﻷدﺑﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻌﺾ‪ ،‬ﻷن ﻣﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎﺗﻨﺎ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ واﻹﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن ﻳﻌﺎد ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺒﻬﺎ ﺑﻮاﺳﻄﺔ ﻧﻈﻢ‬ ‫اﻟﺤﺎﺳﺐ اﻵﻟﻲ ﻟﻌﺮض اﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺿﻤﻨﻨﺎهﺎ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻮﺻﻒ أو ﻧﻘﺎط اﻹﺗﺎﺣﺔ „‪ .‬إﻧﻨﻲ أﺗﻔﻖ ﻣﻌﻬﺎ ﺗﻤﺎﻣﺎ أن اﻟﺠﺪل ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ اﻵن‬ ‫وإن إﺣﺘﻤﺎﻻت ﻣﺸﺎرآﺔ ﻧﻈﻢ اﻟﺤﺎﺳﺐ اﻵﻟﻲ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻮﻗﺖ اﻟﺤﺎﻟﻲ وﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺒﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺣﻞ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﺸﻜﻠﺔ‪ ،‬وﻟﻜﻦ ﻳﻈﻞ اﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮع ﻳﺠﺐ‬ ‫أن ﻳﺸﺎر إﻟﻴﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ إﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﺎت ﺧﺒﺮاء اﻻﻓﻼ ﻟﻠﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷن اﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﻬﺎ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻤﺤﻠﻴﺔ‬ ‫واﻟﻤﻤﺎرﺳﺎت اﻟﻔﺮدﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺎت ﻣﻊ هﺬا اﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮع ﻏﻴﺮ ﺛﺎﺑﺘﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺮة وأن ﻧﻔﺲ اﻟﻤﻨﺸﻮر ﻳﺘﻢ وﺻﻔﻪ ﺑﻄﺮق ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻔﻬﺎرس‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ اﻟﻤﺜﺎل‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﻨﻀﻊ ﻓﻲ إﻋﺘﺒﺎرﻧﺎ هﺬا اﻟﻤﻨﺸﻮر „ﻗﺼﺺ ﺑﺎﻷﺑﻴﺾ واﻷﺳﻮد „ ﺻﺪرت ﻓﻲ ﺑﺎرﻳﺲ ﻋﺎم ‪ .2001‬اﻟﻘﺼﺺ‬ ‫اﻟﺨﻤﺲ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ اﻟﻘﺼﻴﺮة اﻟﻤﺘﻀﻤﻨﺔ ﻓﻲ هﺬا اﻟﻤﻨﺸﻮر ﺗﻢ إﺧﺘﻴﺎرهﺎ وﺗﺮﺟﻤﺘﻬﺎ إﻟﻰ اﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ﺑﻮاﺳﻄﺔ ﻓﺮاﻧﺴﻮا زاﺑﺎل‪ ،‬واﻟﺬي آﺘﺐ‬ ‫أﻳﻀﺎ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻘﺼﺺ‪ .‬هﻞ ﻳﺠﺐ أن ﻧﻨﻈﺮ إﻟﻰ اﻟﻤﻠﺨﺺ‪ ،‬واﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮى اﻟﻨﺼﻲ )„ﻗﺼﺺ ﺑﺎﻷﺑﻴﺾ واﻷﺳﻮد ﻋﻠﻰ أﻧﻬﺎ‬ ‫آﺎﻣﻠﺔ آﻌﻤﻞ‪ ،‬إذن؟ وﻳﻜﻮن ﻓﺮاﻧﺴﻮا زاﺑﺎل „اﻟﺼﺎﻧﻊ“ ﻟﻬﺬا اﻟﻌﻤﻞ؟ ﺑﻴﺪ‪ ،‬هﺬا ﻟﻴﺲ اﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮع اﻟﺬي أﺣﺎول أن أﻋﺮﺿﻪ هﻨﺎ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻓﺎﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎت واﻟﻤﺨﺘﺎرات هﻰ أﺣﺪ أﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎت اﻟﺨﺎدﻋﺔ اﻟﻜﺜﻴﺮة اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺤﺎول ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻋﻤﻞ اﻻﻓﻼ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎت أن ﺗﺤﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﺸﺎآﻠﻪ‪ .‬إن إهﺘﻤﺎﻣﻲ اﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻲ هﻨﺎ هﻮ آﻴﻔﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻊ اﻷﻋﻤﺎل اﻟﻤﻨﻔﺮدة واﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﺠﻤﻌﺔ ﻓﻲ هﺬا اﻟﻤﻨﺸﻮر؟ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ إﻟﻰ‬ ‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ زاﺑﺎل‪ ،‬واﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺗﺤﺘﻮي „ﻗﺼﺺ ﺑﺎﻷﺑﻴﺾ واﻷﺳﻮد“ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻷﻋﻤﺎل اﻵﺗﻴﺔ ﺑﻮاﺳﻄﺔ آﺘﺎب ﻋﺮب آﺒﺎر‪،‬‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻲ اﻷﺻﻠﻲ وﺑﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ زاﺑﺎل اﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻲ ]اﻟﺮؤﻳﺔ[ ﻟﻌﺒﺪ اﻟﺴﻼم اﻟﻌﺠﻴﻠﻰ؛ ﻣﻐﻨﻲ اﻟﻠﻴﻞ ﻟﺰآﺮﻳﺎ ﺗﺎﻣﺮ؛ اﻟﻤﺒﺎرزة ﻟﻤﺤﻤﺪ‬ ‫اﻟﺒﺴﺎﻃﻲ؛ ﻃﺎﺋﺮ اﻟﻨﺤﺲ اﻟﺬهﺒﻲ ﻹﺑﺮاهﻴﻢ اﻟﻜﻮﻧﻲ وﻋﺸﺒﺔ ﻟﺴﻠﻤﻰ ﻣﻄﺮ ﺳﻴﻒ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻹﻋﺘﻤﺎد ﻋﻠﻰ أي ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ ﻓﻬﺮﺳﺔ وأي ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﻓﻬﺮﺳﺔ ﻧﻄﺒﻘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن‪:‬‬ ‫ أن ﻧﺘﺠﺎهﻞ آﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻬﻢ أآﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ؛‬‫ ﻧﻮردهﻢ‪ ،‬إﺣﺘﻤﺎل ﻓﻲ ﻣﻌﻘﻮﻓﺎت‪„ ،‬آﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎت ﻋﻨﻮان أﺧﺮى“ ﻣﺴﺌﻮﻟﻴﺔ؛‬‫ ﻧﻮردهﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺒﺼﺮة ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻳﺎت‪ ،‬ﺑﺪون ﺗﻜﺸﻴﻔﻬﻢ؛‬‫ ﻧﻮردهﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺒﺼﺮة ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻳﺎت‪ ،‬وﻧﻌﻤﻞ ﻣﺪاﺧﻞ إﺿﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺆﻟﻒ ‪/‬ﻋﻨﻮان ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﻟﻴﺘﻢ إﺳﺘﺮﺟﺎﻋﻬﻢ؛‬‫ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻼت ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻠﻴﺔ‬‫ﻣﺎ اﻟﺬي ﻳﺠﺐ أن ﻧﺸﻴﺮ ﺑﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ؟‬ ‫اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺘﺎج‬ ‫إﻧﻪ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ راﺋﻌﺎ إذا وﺿﻊ ‪ FRBR‬ﺣﻠﻮل ﻟﻜﻞ اﻟﻤﺸﺎآﻞ اﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬أو ﻳﺴﺎﻋﺪﻧﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﻞ آﻞ اﻟﻤﺸﺎآﻞ اﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ‪ .‬هﺬا ﺑﻮﺿﻮح ﻟﻴﺲ‬ ‫هﻮ اﻟﻤﺴﺄﻟﺔ‪ .‬وﻟﻜﻦ ﻳﺘﻴﺢ ‪ FRBR‬ﻟﻨﺎ أداة ﻣﻔﺎهﻴﻢ واﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺴﺎﻋﺪ آﺜﻴﺮا ﻓﻲ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ وإﺳﺘﻔﻬﺎم اﻟﻄﺮق اﻟﺘﻲ ﻧﻔﻬﺮس ﺑﻬﺎ‪ .‬إن اﻹﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎت‬ ‫اﻟﻮاﺿﺤﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻀﻌﻬﺎ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﺎ هﻮ ﻣﺎدي و ﻣﺎ هﻮ „ﻣﺠﺮد“ ﻓﻲ „اﻷﺷﻴﺎء“ اﻟﺘﻲ ﻧﺼﻔﻬﺎ‪ ،‬واﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻳﺎت اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺤﺪد ﺑﻬﺎ‬ ‫„اﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮى“ ﻟﻞ „ﻣﻨﺸﻮرات‪ “،‬ﻣﻔﻴﺪة ﻟﻨﻀﻌﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ذهﻨﻨﺎ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﻔﻜﺮ ﻓﻲ آﻴﻒ ﻧﺤﺴﻦ ﻓﻬﺎرﺳﻨﺎ وآﻴﻒ ﻧﺤﺴﻦ اﻟﺨﺪﻣﺎت اﻟﺘﻲ ﻧﺘﻴﺤﻬﺎ‬ ‫ﻟﻤﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪﻳﻨﺎ اﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ‪ .‬هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﻤﻴﺰات ﻳﺠﺐ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺄآﻴﺪ أن ﺗﻨﻌﻜﺲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺒﻞ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪﻧﺎ ﻟﻠﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 39‬ﺗﻴﻠﻴﺖ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎرﺑﺮا ب‪ .‬ﻓﻬﺮﺳﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺘﻘﺒﻞ ]ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺨﻂ اﻟﻤﺒﺎﺷﺮ[ ‪ :‬ﻋﺮﺿﺖ ﻋﺎم ‪ 2004‬آﻤﺤﺎﺿﺮة ﻓﻲ ﻣﺪرﺳﺔ ﺧﺮﻳﺠﻲ اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺎت وﻋﻠﻮم اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت‬ ‫ﺑﺠﺎﻣﻌﺔ إﻟﻴﻨﻮي‪ 13 ،‬أآﺘﻮﺑﺮ‪] .2004 ،‬أورﺑﺎﻧﺎ‪-‬ﺷﺎﻣﺒﻴﻦ ‪] :[I11‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮرات ﻣﺪرﺳﺔ ﺧﺮﻳﺠﻲ اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺎت وﻋﻠﻮم اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت[‪] [2004] ،‬وﺿﻌﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫اﻻﻧﺘﺮﻧﺖ ﻓﻲ ‪ 12‬ﺳﺒﺘﻤﺒﺮ ‪ .[2005‬ﻣﺘﺎﺣﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ اﻵﺗﻲ‪:‬‬ ‫‪http://puboff.lis.uiuc.edu/catalog/windsor/windsor_ tillett.html‬‬

‫‪89‬‬

A VIRTUAL INTERNATIONAL AUTHORITY FILE (VIAF) Presentation by Barbara B. Tillett, Ph.D. Chair, IFLA Division of Bibliographic Control and Chief, Cataloging Policy & Support Office, Library of Congress for the IME ICC3, Cairo Egypt 12 December 2005 Also see: „Authority Control on the Web,” Barbara B. Tillett. In: Proceedings of the Bicentennial Conference on Bibliographic Control for the New Millennium : Confronting the Challenges of Networked Resources and the Web, Washington, D.C., November 15-17, 2000. Sponsored by the Library of Congress Cataloging Directorate. Edited by Ann M. Sandberg-Fox. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, Cataloging Distribution Service, 2001, p. 207–220.

________________________________________ It has often been observed that the current Web is chaotic for finding information. It needs help and we can provide it! Introducing an element of authority control to the Web environment would help meet these objectives: -

facilitating the sharing of the workload to reduce cataloguing costs. Our community has expanded, especially in Europe these days, where libraries are viewed with archives, museums, and rights management agencies as „memory institutions.” Is this also true in Asian countries? We hope authority files could be shared among all communities. Shared authority information has the added benefit of reducing the global costs of doing authority work while enabling controlled access and better precision of searching.

Other objectives for authority control are: -

to simplify the creation and maintenance of authority records internationally and

-

to enable users to access information in the language, scripts, and form they prefer or that their local library provides for them...

Authority Control Virtues The virtues of authority control have been debated and restated for decades. When we apply authority control in the Web environment, we are reminded how it brings precision to searches, how the syndetic structure of references enables navigation and provides explanations for variations and inconsistencies, how the controlled forms of names and titles and subjects help collocate works in displays, how we can actually link to the authorized forms of names, titles, and subject that are used in various tools, like directories, biographies, abstracting and indexing services, and so on. We can use the linking capability to include library catalogues in the mix of various tools that are available on the Web. Controlling forms used for access and displays provides consistency for users.

90

We are all aware of very poor OPACs that lack cross references or links to authority files and without these features, quite frankly, they are not catalogues! There are many technological capabilities that are coming together now and we are really at the brink of making a virtual international authority file a reality. This is virtual because it is not really a file itself, but a linked system that connects existing Authority Files. We’re also making an historic change to how we view Universal Bibliographic Control (UBC). The IFLA UBC principles for authority control are parallel to those for bibliographic control, namely that -

each country is responsible for the authorized headings for its own personal and corporate authors and

-

the authority records created by each national bibliographic agency would be available to all other countries needing authority records for those same authors. Even more, that the same headings would be used worldwide.

In the 1960’s and 1970’s when this was really catching on, technology had not yet advanced to make such sharing practical on an international level. Plus the lack of funding for an international center to manage such a program prevented that visionary concept from becoming reality. As for the same form being acceptable worldwide, the IFLA developers at that time were primarily from North America and Europe and apparently did not acknowledge the necessity for multiple scripts. For the past couple of years a new view of Universal Bibliographic Control is emerging from several working groups within IFLA. This new perspective reinforces the importance of authority control, yet puts the user first. It’s a practical approach that recognizes a user in China may not want to see the heading for Confucius in a Latinized form, but in their own script. Similarly users in the Middle East would want to see the heading in their own script and language. Yet to still get the benefits of shared authority work and creation of bibliographic records that can be re-used worldwide, we can link authorized forms of names, titles, and even subjects through the authority files of national bibliographic agencies and other regional agencies to create a virtual international authority file. These are several models for how this might work and we need to do more pilot projects of prototypes of thee models to test which would be best to pursue. In order to be of most use to the library users in each country, the scripts should be the scripts they can read! Figure 1 show shows that the names we give to an entity can be expressed in many languages and in many scripts. For example, we could write it in English or German with a roman script, in Arabic with Arabic script, in Russian in Cyrillic script, or in Japanese (in any of three scripts!) and in many other languages and scripts. Transliteration may serve as a way for some users to be able to decipher records, but much better is the accuracy of using original scripts.

91

Figure 1

Same Entity/Variant Scripts Japanese

‫ﻳﺎﺑﺎﻧﻲ‬ We should now provide at least cross references for variant forms of headings in variant scripts when that is appropriate. We should eventually be able to display the script and form of a heading that the user expects and wants. I believe that many catalogers within IFLA realize the value of preserving parallel authority records for the same entity. This allows us to reflect the national and cultural needs of our individual users, and at the same time to allow us to set up the syndetic structure of cross references and authorized forms of headings to be used in our catalogues intended for a specific audience. It also allows us to include variants in alternate scripts, at least as cross references for now. As we look at linking we must recognize that different cataloguing rules have differences in what they consider entities – AACR2’s choices are not universal, for example, German rules (Regeln für die alphabetische Katalogisierung – RAK) do not recognize that the ships logs can be under an entry for the name of the ship, so they would not have an authority record for ships names. Similarly for events. For meetings of corporate bodies, the German rules would not create a heading for the entity that AACR2 creates in as a hierarchically subordinate heading for a meeting under the name of the corporate body. There are also different practices for undifferentiated names - the Germans recently changed their rules to differentiate more names - they more commonly used undifferentiated forms for personal names using just initials for forenames. They still do not require as complete a name or a qualified name to distinguish as the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules call for. However, even under the same cataloguing rules, say AACR2, when we get more information to differentiate a person, we can make a new authority record to differentiate that person from

92

others groups together under an undifferentiated form of name. This also means that the record for the undifferentiated name can reflect different associated entities over time. Some local systems already provide us with computer-assisted mechanisms for automatic checking of headings against an existing authority file, and we could see this expanded to then launch a search against a virtual international authority file, if no match was found locally. We can also envision the capability of displaying the found matches from the virtual file for a cataloguer to edit or to merge information, if desired, into the local authority record, including capturing the information for future linking. Some systems now provide community specific retrievals to concentrate on the subject needs of a community in selecting resources for online searches, and other systems like „my library” or „my opac” even go beyond that to individual specific retrievals. Those could build in the authority preferences for user preferred scripts and displays for controlled vocabularies. We want to have the authorized form preferred by a library as the default offered to most users, but we can also envision offering user-selected preferences through client software, or cookies that let the user specify once what their preferred language, script, or cultural preference is - for example for spelling preferences when cultures have variations, like American English and spelling preferences in the United Kingdom - labor and labour. There are many ways this could actually be applied and I’ve suggested several scenarios in earlier papers. Let’s quickly take a look at two. A cataloger types in information into a bibliographic record and the local system checks the local authority file [Figure 2]. Figure 2 Scenario 1

Create bibliographic record 100 1

‡a ‘Aqqād, ‘Abbās M.

245 13 ‡a al-Ta‘rīf bi-Shikisbīr

Check local authority file

93

The local system found the record in the local authority file and displays it so the cataloguer can confirm it’s the same entity [Figure 3]. Figure 3

And we’d like the system then to automatically update the bibliographic record with the authorized information from that authority record, once it is confirmed [Figure 4]. Figure 4 S cenario 1

C orrects bibliographic record 100 1

‡a ‘Aqqad, ‘Abbas M ah?m ud, ‡ d1889-1964.

245 13 ‡a al-Ta‘rif bi-Shikisbir

Now what about no record in the local file? Let’s look at a second scenario.

94

A cataloger types in information. The local system checks the local authority file and finds no match, so it tells the cataloguer that the heading was not found and launches a Web search to the virtual international authority file [Figure 5-6]. Figure 5 Scenario 2

Create bibliographic record 100 1

‡a ‘Aqqad, ‘Abbas M.

245 13 ‡a al-Ta‘rif bi-Shikisbir

Not found in local authority file. Checking VIAF.

Figure 6 Your search of the Virtual International Authority File found the following match:

95

Up pops the match with a record created at the Library of Congress. Our cataloguer takes a look and perhaps doesn’t want all the information but likes a reference or two and wants a link, so then the local system asks the cataloger if she wants the system to create a basic authority record from the one found and to make a link to it…and we click on „yes” [Figure 7]. Figure 7 Scenario 2

Link authorities 100 1

‡a ‘Aqqād, ‘Abbās M.

Create and Link?

Yes

No

And our local system automatically builds a local authority record, grabbing the linking information from the virtual authority file - that is the record from the Library of Congress. The cataloger then adds the MARC field 100, authorized form, according to the locally used cataloging rules, in this case AACR2. And our cataloger can add other fields if needed [Figure 8]. Figure 8

96

The local system adds the linking 700 field - the MARC format has the 7XX fields in authority records, where we can put the linking authorized form and the record control number and the source information for future linking. This linking of authority files would primarily be among the national or regional authority files of national bibliographic agencies - depending on the model we choose. I’ll come back to that in a minute. So we’ve now added another link in the virtual international authority file to the authorized form following AACR2 - note the record control number for the Library of Congress: (LC) n79121684 - and the Arabic record for the same entity in Arabic script [Figure 9]. Figure 9

Virtual International Authority File (VIAF) ‘Aqqad (LC)n 79121684

‫ ﻋﺒﺎس ﻣﺤﻤﻮد‬،‫ﻋﻘﺎد‬

Then our local system updates our local bibliographic record [Figure 10]. Figure 10 Scenario 2

Corrects bibliographic record 100 1

‡a ‘Aqqād, ‘Abbās Maḥmūd, ‡d 1889-1964.

245 13 ‡a al-Ta‘rīf bi-Shikisbīr

97

When a user comes along, the local system or the „cookies” on the user’s system, could specify they want to see the Arabic form and we could display it for them [Figure 11]. Figure 11

Local system - User view User’s cookie specifies Cyrillic/Russian preferred. Display 700 form, building on local system’s authority structure

‘Aqqād, ‘Abbās Maḥmūd, 1889-1964.

You can also imagine displaying any script or a Braille keyboard output, or we could provide voice recognition response, built on a user’s profile or their „cookie.” Figure 12 is not the VIAF record, but rather is an example of what a Library of Congress authority record might look like with Unicode capability to include original scripts as cross references in a library’s catalog. Actually with Unicode the roman script diacritics would appear with the letter rather than before the letter shown here, but this just gives you an idea of what it would be like. There is no particular order to the arrangement of the references, except to place the non-roman scripts following the roman scripts. This model shows English, German, Italian, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Russian, and transliterations (including Wade-Giles and pinyin for the Chinese, since the Library of Congress just switched to use pinyin). Notice also the new MARC 21 capability to include the URL for a Web page in the last 670 note field.

98

Figure 12

‫آﻮﻧﻔﻴﺸﻴﻮس‬ Конфуций

700

0

7

‡a ‫ ‡ آﻮﻧﻔﻴﺸﻴﻮس‬2 ‡ 0 ‡ 5

There are several models for a virtual international authority file. For a distributed model, a searcher would use a standard protocol like the next generation of Z39.50, to search the independent authority files of participating National Bibliographic Agencies or regional authorities. Figure 13

Centralized - Union Authority File (OAI Model)

99

Another model is to have one central authority file and link all others to that, so that work would not need to be done by each national bibliographic agency with all other participants in this international universe. A cataloger would then get access to all the authority records for that entity worldwide by a single search of the central file. If there was not match in that central file, a search could then be made with Z39.50 to the other files. Figure 13 shows a centralized model: We may find that this model is the best approach in terms of record maintenance -The Open Archives Initiative (OAI) protocol model uses a server with harvested metadata from the national authority files. That information is refreshed in the server whenever there are changes in the national files. This means the day to day record maintenance activities continue to be managed as they are now by the National Bibliographic Agency (or regional authority). Unless we also build in the linking, we possibly will lose a level of precision in the searching in this model; but there are ways to include the links for entities in this model, too. There are many variations of models we could imagine. I am sure you can imagine other variations of these models. And we need to try them out to see which will be best for us in today’s Internet environment. Figure 14

VIAF Proof of Concept DDB/LC/OCLC LCNAF

OAI

DDB/PND

Server(s)

The German National Library (Die Deutsche Bibliothek) and the Library of Congress together with OCLC have started a proof of concept project to test the centralized union authority file model using OAI protocols [Figure 14]. The first stage of this project began in 2003 to link our existing authority records for personal names, testing the matching algorithms to see how much a computer can do for us and how much will require human intervention for matching and checking. It is hoped if this proves successful it can be the basis for a true Virtual International Authority File. If we agree that sharing authority information on a global scale is worthwhile, how do we get there? Several major authority files exist, built according to their own cataloguing rules and rule interpretations. We need a one-time project to link the existing records for the same entity – a retrospective matching project.

100

One suggestion has been to use matching algorithms, such as those developed by Ed O’Neill and others at OCLC, building on bibliographic clues for machine matching at a fairly high level of accuracy. This is the approach being taken for the „proof of concept” project underway between OCLC, the Library of Congress, and the Deutsche Bibliothek (German National Library) in Frankfurt, Germany. We would still have manual matching and checking to do, but expect machine matching will be a great help. We could also have the computer add linking text strings and record control numbers or an entity identification number to facilitate later links and pathways to preferred forms for displays. We can also envision a shared international authority file being an integral part of a future „Semantic Web.” [Figure 15]. You may have heard about this in a Scientific American article a few years ago now by Tim Berners-Lee, founder of the Internet. The idea is to make the Internet more intelligent for machine navigation rather than human navigation of the Web. It involves creating an infrastructure of linked resources and the use of controlled vocabularies, they are calling „ontologies.” These ontologies could be used to enable displays in the user’s own language and script. Figure 15

Semantic Web Building Blocks A&I controlled vocabularies

Other controlled vocabularies

(Library) authority files

“Ontologies”

End-user Here’s where libraries have an opportunity to contribute to the infrastructure of the future Web we already have controlled vocabularies in our various authority files. Those would be linked with other controlled vocabularies of abstracting and indexing services, of biographical dictionaries, of telephone directories, and many other reference tools and resources to help users navigate and to improve the precision of searches, so users could find what they’re looking for.

101

Figure 16

Semantic Web Building Blocks “Ontologies”

Web search engine

End-user

Digital world

You can see in Figure 16 that we would also build in the search engines and future tools that as a collective resource would connect us to the entire digital world. All of this, of course, would have built-in, appropriate security and privacy assurances and ways to identify and acknowledge resources that we can trust and rely on, and somehow, miraculously, all the copyright issues will be resolved -we are definitely talking future! But it’s great to think about the possibilities and opportunities for testing this out and to think about how we can improve upon our dreams. The Web has brought us a new way to convey information. The new twist is that our catalog that is our PC where the online catalog is displayed, is also the device for viewing the actual digital objects and connecting to the entire digital world. We are preferring the model shown in Figure 17 for now, as it seems to hold the most promise for scalability – to include the connections to all the major authority files worldwide. We really hope we can preserve local forms this way and link different records that use varying cataloguing codes and yet still meet users needs.

102

Figure 17

Virtual International Authority File (VIAF)

The Library of Congress and the Deutsche Bibliothek have made the start in linking our authority files for personal names. Once we prove this model, we would very much like to test adding other authority files, but remember our goal is to make this information freely available to users worldwide. Great challenges are ahead but the technology now makes this test possible.

103

‫ﻣﻠﻒ اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎد اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ اﻻﻓﺘﺮاﺿﻲ‬ ‫ﺗﻘﺪﻳﻢ‬ ‫د‪ .‬ﺑﺎرﺑﺮا ﺗﻴﻠﻴﺖ‬ ‫اﻷهﺪاف‬

‫‬‫‬‫‪-‬‬

‫ﺗﺴﻬﻴﻞ اﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﺔ ﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﻞ ﺗﻜﻠﻔﺔ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻜﺘﺒﺎت واﻟﻤﺘﺎﺣﻒ واﻷرﺷﻴﻔﺎت وﻣﺆﺳﺴﺎت ﺣﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺣﻘﻮق اﻟﻤﻠﻜﻴﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻔﻜﺮﻳﺔ ‪ ...‬اﻟﺦ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺗﺒﺴﻴﻂ إﻧﺸﺎء ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎد وﺗﺴﻬﻴﻞ ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻠﻬﺎ دوﻟﻴﺎ‬ ‫ﺗﻤﻜﻴﻦ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻮﺻﻮل إﻟﻰ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ واﻟﻨﺺ واﻟﺸﻜﻞ اﻟﺬي ﻳﻔﻀﻠﻮﻧﻪ‬

‫ﻓﻮاﺋﺪ اﻟﻀﺒﻂ اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎدي‬ ‫‬‫‬‫‪-‬‬

‫إﺣﻜﺎم ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ اﻟﺒﺤﺚ‬ ‫ﺗﻘﺪﻳﻢ ﺑﻨﻴﺔ ﻣﺘﺮاﺑﻄﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻹﺣﺎﻻت ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺎﻋﺪة ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺘﺼﻔﺢ ﺧﻼل اﻷﺷﻜﺎل اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﻸﺳﻤﺎء واﻟﻌﻨﺎوﻳﻦ واﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎت‬ ‫‪ ...‬اﻟﺦ‬ ‫ﺗﺠﻤﻴﻊ اﻷﻋﻤﺎل اﻟﻤﺘﺮاﺑﻄﺔ ذات اﻟﺼﻠﺔ‬

‫ﻣﻠﻒ اﻹﺳﺘﻨﺎد اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ اﻻﻓﺘﺮاﺿﻲ‬ ‫)‪(VIAF‬‬

‫ﻣﺒﺎدئ اﻹﻓﻼ واﻟﻀﺒﻂ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻤﻲ ﻟﻺﺳﺘﻨﺎد‬ ‫‬‫‬‫‪-‬‬

‫ﺗﻜﻮن آﻞ دوﻟﺔ ﻣﺴﺌﻮﻟﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺪاﺧﻠﻬﺎ اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻴﻦ ﺳﻮاء آﺎﻧﻮا أﻓﺮاد أو هﻴﺌﺎت‬ ‫اﺗﺎﺣﺔ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ اﻟﻘﻮﻣﻴﺔ ﻟﻜﻞ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﺗﻮﺣﻴﺪ اﻟﺸﻜﻞ واﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮى اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻤﻲ‬

‫‪104‬‬

‫رؤﻳﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪة ﻟﻠﻀﺒﻂ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻤﻲ‬ ‫‬‫‬‫‪-‬‬

‫رﻏﺒﺔ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪ ﻓﻲ اﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻟﻠﻐﺔ واﻟﻨﺺ اﻟﺨﺎﺻﻴﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﺒﻠﺪ اﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻨﺘﻤﻲ إﻟﻴﻬﺎ‬ ‫ﺗﻈﻞ اﻟﻤﺆﺳﺴﺎت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ هﻲ اﻟﻤﺴﺌﻮﻟﺔ ﻋﻦ اﻟﻀﺒﻂ ﻋﻠﻰ إﻃﺎر اﻟﺒﻠﺪان أو اﻹﻗﻠﻴﻢ اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﻬﺎ واﺳﺘﺨﺪام ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ‬ ‫اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﻬﺎ ‪ ...‬اﻟﺦ‬ ‫اﻟﺮﺑﻂ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﻠﻔﺎت اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎد اﻟﻘﻮﻣﻴﺔ واﻹﻗﻠﻴﻤﻴﺔ ﻹﻧﺸﺎء ﻣﻠﻒ اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎد اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ اﻻﻓﺘﺮاﺿﻲ‬

‫ﻟﻐﺎت ﻣﺘﻌﺪدة ﻟﻨﻔﺲ اﻟﻜﻴﺎن‬ ‫‪Japanese‬‬

‫اﻟﻜﻴﺎن‬

‫ﻳﺎﺑﺎﻧﻲ‬ ‫اﻟﻜﻴﺎﻧﺎت‬ ‫اﺧﺘﻼف اﻟﻘﻮاﻋﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻜﺎن ﻵﺧﺮ‬ ‫أﻣﺜﻠﺔ ﻟﻼﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎت‬ ‫‬‫‬‫‪-‬‬

‫أﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﺴﻔﻦ‬ ‫اﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﺎت اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺎت‬ ‫اﻷﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻤﺘﺸﺎﺑﻬﺔ‬

‫اﻟﺒﺮاﻣﺞ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺒﻠﻴﺔ ﻟﺘﺴﻬﻴﻞ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎدي‬

‫‬‫‬‫‬‫‪-‬‬

‫‪105‬‬

‫اﻟﻔﺤﺺ اﻵﻟﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﺪﺧﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻘﺎرﻧﺔ ﺑﻤﺎ هﻮ ﻣﻮﺟﻮد ﻓﻌﻼ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻠﻒ اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎدي اﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ‬ ‫ﻟﻮ ﻟﻢ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻣﻮﺟﻮدا ﻓﻴﺘﻢ اﻟﻔﺤﺺ ﺁﻟﻴﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻠﻒ اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎد اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ اﻻﻓﺘﺮاﺿﻲ‬ ‫ﻋﺮض اﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﻹﺟﺮاء ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻞ أو ﻟﻌﻤﻞ إﺣﺎﻟﺔ‬ ‫اﺿﺎﻓﺔ اﻟﺸﻜﻞ اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻟﻤﻠﻒ اﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ ﻟﻀﻤﺎن اﻟﺮﺑﻂ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺒﻠﻲ‬

‫ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ أﺷﻜﺎل اﻟﻌﺮض‬

‫‬‫‪-‬‬

‫اﻟﺸﻜﻞ اﻻﻓﺘﺮاﺿﻲ اﻟﺬي ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﻪ اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺔ‬ ‫اﻷﺷﻜﺎل اﻟﻤﻔﻀﻠﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪ‬ ‫إﻋﺪادات اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪات ﺧﺎﺻﺔ‪ ،‬ﻃﺮق ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺒﻠﻴﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻨﺺ‬ ‫اﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ اﻹﻣﻼﺋﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺪوﻟﺔ‪:‬‬ ‫ﻣﺜﺎل‪labor-labour /‬‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻲ )ﻓﻲ اﻟﺸﺎم( – ﻋﻠﻰ )ﻓﻲ ﻣﺼﺮ(‬

‫اﻟﺴﻴﻨﺎرﻳﻮ اﻷول‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ ﻣﻮﺟﻮد ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻠﻒ اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎدي اﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ‬

‫‪-‬‬

‫ﺗﻄﺎﺑﻖ اﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﻊ اﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻠﻒ اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎد اﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ‬

‫إﻧﺸﺎء ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ ﺑﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‬

‫اﻟﺴﻴﻨﺎرﻳﻮ اﻷول‬ ‫إﻧﺸﺎء ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ ﺑﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‬ ‫‪‡a ‘Aqqād, ‘Abbās M.‬‬

‫‪100 1‬‬

‫‪245 13 ‡a al-Ta‘rīf bi-Shikisbīr‬‬

‫ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﻣﻠﻒ اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎد اﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ‬

‫‪106‬‬

‫ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻞ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‬

‫اﻟﺴﻴﻨﺎرﻳﻮ اﻷول‬ ‫ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻞ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‬ ‫‪‡a ‘Aqqād, ‘Abbās Maḥmud, ‡d 1889-1964‬‬

‫‪100 1‬‬

‫‪245 13 ‡a al-Ta‘rīf bi-Shikisbīr‬‬

‫‪107‬‬

‫اﻟﺴﻴﻨﺎرﻳﻮ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ‬ ‫اﻻﺗﺼﺎل اﻟﺨﺎرﺟﻲ‬

‫‬‫‬‫‪-‬‬

‫ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺗﻄﺎﺑﻖ ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ واﻟﻤﻠﻒ اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎدي اﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ‬ ‫اﻻﺗﺼﺎل اﻟﺨﺎرﺟﻲ ﻟﻠﺒﺤﺚ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻠﻒ اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎد اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ اﻹﻓﺘﺮاﺿﻲ‬ ‫ﺗﻮﻗﻊ ﺗﺤﺴﻦ وﻗﺖ اﻹﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔ وﺗﻄﻮر اﻟﻨﻈﻢ اﻵﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺒﻞ‬

‫اﻧﺸﺎء ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ ﺑﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‬

‫اﻟﺴﻴﻨﺎرﻳﻮ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ‬ ‫اﻧﺸﺎء ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ ﺑﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‬ ‫‪‡a ‘Aqqād, ‘Abbās M.‬‬

‫‪100 1‬‬

‫‪245 13 ‡a al-Ta‘rīf bi-Shikisbīr‬‬

‫ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻮﺟﻮد ﻓﻲ ﻣﻠﻒ اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎد اﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ‬ ‫ﺟﺎري اﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﻣﻠﻒ اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎد اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ اﻻﻓﺘﺮاﺿﻲ‬

‫ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ اﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻠﻒ اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎد اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ اﻻﻓﺘﺮاﺿﻲ هﻲ‬

‫‪108‬‬

‫ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ اﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻠﻒ اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎد اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ اﻻﻓﺘﺮاﺿﻲ هﻲ‬

‫رﺑﻂ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ‬

‫اﻟﺴﻴﻨﺎرﻳﻮ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ‬ ‫رﺑﻂ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ‬ ‫‪‡a ‘Aqqād, ‘Abbās M.‬‬

‫ﻧﻌﻢ‬

‫ﻻ‬

‫‪109‬‬

‫‪100 1‬‬

‫إﻧﺸﺎء ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﻣﺤﻠﻴﺔ ورﺑﻄﻬﺎ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ‬

‫اﻧﺸﺎء ﺁﻟﻲ ﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎد ﻓﻲ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻠﻒ اﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ‬ ‫ﻣﻊ اﻟﺮاﺑﻂ‬

‫اﺳﺘﺨﺪام ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻷﻧﺠﻠﻮ أﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ‬

‫‪,‡d1889-1964‬ﻋﻘﺎد‪ ,‬ﻋﺒﺎس ﻣﺤﻤﻮد‪‡a،‬‬

‫‪1‬‬

‫‪700‬‬

‫ﻣﻠﻒ اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎد اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ اﻻﻓﺘﺮاﺿﻲ‬ ‫‪‘Aqqād‬‬ ‫‪(LC)n 79121684‬‬

‫ﻋﻘﺎد‪ ،‬ﻋﺒﺎس ﻣﺤﻤﻮد‬

‫ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻞ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‬

‫‪110‬‬

‫اﻟﺴﻴﻨﺎرﻳﻮ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ‬ ‫ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻞ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‬ ‫‪‡a ‘Aqqād, ‘Abbās Maḥmud, ‡d 1889-1964.‬‬

‫‪100 1‬‬

‫‪245 13 ‡a al-Ta‘rīf bi-Shikisbīr‬‬

‫ﺷﻜﻞ اﻟﻌﺮض اﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ اﻟﺨﺎص ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪ‬

‫اﻟﻨﻈﺎم اﻵﻟﻲ اﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ ‪ -‬ﺷﻜﻞ اﻟﻌﺮض اﻟﺨﺎص‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪ‬ ‫اﺧﺘﻴﺎر اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺑﻮاﺳﻄﺔ ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪات اﻟﻌﺮض اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪ‬ ‫ﻋﺮض اﻟﺤﻘﻞ رﻗﻢ ‪ 700‬ﺑﺎﻟﺸﻜﻞ اﻟﻤﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﻣﻠﻒ اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎد اﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ‬

‫‪‘Aqqād, ‘Abbās Maḥmud, 1889-1964.‬‬

‫‪111‬‬

‫آﻮﻧﻔﻴﺸﻴﻮس‬ ‫‪Конфуций‬‬

‫>‪ ‡ 2 ‡ 0 ‡ 5 1 Title proper or supplied title for manifestation Year(s) of publication or issuance Uniform title of work/expression Subject headings, subject terms Classification numbers Standard numbers, identifiers, ‘key titles’ for described entity

157

Figure 32

7.1.2 Indispensable Access Points • For authority records – Authorized name or title of entity – Variant forms of name or title for the entity

Figure 33

7.1.3 Additional Access Points • Attributes from other areas of bibliographic description or authority record may serve as – optional access points or – filtering or limiting devices when large numbers of records are retrieved

Figure 34

7.1.3 Additional Access Points • For bibliographic records include (not limited to): – Names of additional creators beyond the first – Names of performers or persons, families, or corporate bodies in other roles than creator – Parallel titles, caption titles, etc. – Uniform title of the series – Bibliographic record identifiers – Language – Country of publication – Physical medium

158

Figure 35

7.1.3 Additional Access Points • For authority records include (not limited to): – Names or titles of related entities – Authority record identifiers

In our initial draft we also had a section 8 for displays, but that was removed after discussion about it being too oriented towards system applications. However, the participants agreed it would be useful for IFLA to issue guidance to system designers about the desirable features of displays that would meet the objectives of library catalogs as stated at the start of these principles. There is also another IFLA Working Group that just completed a report on OPAC Displays and their report is available on IFLANET. At the end of the Statement is an Appendix (see Figure 36) that gives the fundamental objectives for constructing cataloguing codes. Figure 36

Appendix • Objectives for the Construction of Cataloguing Codes – Convenience of user – Common usage – Representation – Accuracy

– Sufficiency and necessity – Significance – Economy – Standardization – Integration – Defensible and not arbitrary

There is also a Glossary that accompanies this draft Statement of International Cataloguing Principles to help translators understand the concepts expressed in the terminology used in this statement. Hopefully you will be able to agree on terms for Arabic script languages.

159

‫‪RECOMMENDATIONS FROM‬‬ ‫‪THE IME ICC3 WORKING GROUPS‬‬ ‫اﻻﻗﺘﺮاﺣﺎت اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎت ﻋﻤﻞ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع اﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‬ ‫ﻹﻓﻼ ﻟﻠﺨﺒﺮاء ﻓﻲ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ‬

WORKING GROUP 1 – PERSONAL NAMES Iman Khairy, Bibliotheca Alexandrina, Egypt (GROUP LEADER) Khaled Mohamed Reyad, Library of Congress, Cairo Office (RECORDER)

Participants Bahrain Mohamed Ahmed Al-Jarhi, University of Bahrain Egypt Adalat Ibrahim Ahmed, Egyptian National Library Amany Gamal Megahid, Munufiyah University Ansam Baranek, Library of Congress, Cairo Office Iman Abdel Khader Mohamed, Cairo University Shadia El-Hanafy, American University in Cairo Siham Shams Aldein, Cairo University Jordan Issa Lallu, Jordanian University of Science and Technology Libya Salih Muhammad Najm, National Library of Benghazi Lebanon Ahmad Taleb, Lebanese American University Morocco Abderrahamane Rachik, Fondation du roi Abdul Aziz Al Saoud Oman Khalfam Zahran Al-Hijji, Sultan Qaboos University Palestine Najla Sharabati, Birziet University Saudi Arabia Saleh M. Almusned, King Abdulaziz Public Library Mahmoud Abdel Kader Mesroua, King Abdulaziz Public Library United Arab Emirates Maryam al Shamsi, United Arab Emirates University Muneer AbuBaker, Zayed University

Discussion Points The main discussions and interventions from the participants were specifically about personal names access points and the cataloguing rules applied in libraries within the region.

163

Outline 1. Revision of the Draft Statement of International Cataloguing Principles (Area 5) 2. Overview of IFLA IME ICC1 meeting (Frankfurt, Germany, 2003) and the IME ICC2 meeting (Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2004) 3. Glossary of terminology and translation of terms into Arabic 4. Recommendations and suggestions

Revision of the Draft Statement of International Cataloguing Principles Generally, principles are approved and the participants confirmed that the user is our target. All the participants basically approved the draft statement of principles that was last updated in September 2005. The group discussed in detail „Area 5 access points“.

Meeting overviews Comparing between the rules of the Draft Statement of Principles in accordance with AACR2 which is the rule actually applied in libraries in the Arab World represented by the participants. A. Kunyah (Appellation) The participants discussed whether to include or omit the (Kunyah) from Classical Arabic names: For example: Jahiz, Abu Uthman (as recorded in Shaban Khalifah’s list for Classical authors) Or Jahiz (as recorded in Library of Congress Name Authority File) B. Differentiation between classical and modern names in treatment: An opinion was given not to make any distinctions in treatment between Arabic Personal Names according to dates of birth or death, also without allowing special treatment for Classical names. This opinion was not approved by many of the participants due to that „the most commonly known element of the Classical Arabic name is to be taken from reference sources as the entry element, but the 20th Century Arabic personal name doesn’t include commonly known element. Thus, Modern Arabic names are all entered under the last element of the name (Surname) C. The group suggested to study the Automated systems designed to accommodate Arabic script cataloguing and its compatibility with the International Cataloguing Codes. Many comments from the participants that some decisions about applying cataloguing rules can be left to the technological advances of the fully „Arabized“ systems, like for example the problem of including or omitting „al-“ from Arabic script personal names. Some participants said that their systems ignore „al-“ automatically and they don’t have to omit it from the entry element. D. Language and transliteration (5.1.3) The group discussed the problem of treating Arabic script bibliographic records that contain entries of Personal names for Western authors and their names are originally in Roman script. Also an alternative case, the choice of language and script of Personal Names access points for bibliographic records of the translated works of Arabic authors in any Non-Arabic script languages. The majority of participants agreed that it is entirely impractical to enter the Personal Name in a language and script different from the rest of the bibliographic record. Some participants stated that they apply this practice of entering names in the original Roman script although in Arabic script bibliographic records in their catalogues to avoid the problem of

164

transliteration of Names from Roman script to Arabic script. As the problem is that there is no standardized transliteration rules from Roman to Arabic script, but there is a standardized transliteration rules from Arabic to Roman Script. However, still the second case whether to authorize the Arabic name transliterated into Roman script in his translations. For example, in case of entering a heading of Najib Mahfuz in bibliographic record for one of his translated novels into Spanish language for example whether to enter Najib Mahfuz in Arabic or Roman scripts. (A Suggestion for voting of rule 5.1.3) The group recommends to allow multi-lingual access to Arabic authors, whether through linking fields or references to avoid having two separated authors indexes in Arabic and Roman scripts. Also an endorsement was made to the VIAF (Virtual International Authority File) project that will help the user to choose the language and script and also the form of the name suitable to his research. The final conclusion of the group after discussing the draft statement of principles that local practices should follow internationally accepted standards to facilitate exchanging of Arabic script bibliographic and authority records

Glossary A detailed discussion was made for the glossary terms in Arabic. A voting was made by the participants to either approve or replace the term. Also some suggestions for additional terms. See Table below: English Term

Arabic Term

Accepted

Replaced

‫ﻧﻘﻄﺔ اﻟﻮﺻﻮل‬

‫ﻧﻘﻄﺔ اﻹﺗﺎﺣﺔ‬

Agent

‫اﻟﻌﺎﻣﻞ‬

‫اﻟﻤﺴﺌﻮل‬

Attribute

‫اﻟﺤﻘﻞ‬

‫ﺻﻔﺔ‬

Access point

Author Authority record

‫اﻟﻤﺆﻟﻒ‬

‫اﻟﻤﺆﻟﻒ‬

‫اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ‬

‫اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ‬

Added

‫اﻟﻤ ﺪﺧﻞ اﻟﻤﻘ ﻨﻦ – ﻧﻘﻄﺔ‬ ‫اﻹﺗﺎﺣ ﺔ اﻟﻤ ﻮﺣﺪة‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻀﺒﻮﻃﺔ ﻟﻜﻴﺎن‬

Authorized heading – The uniform controlled access point for an entity

‫اﻟﻤ ﺪﺧﻞ اﻟﻤﻘ ﻨﻦ – ﻧﻘﻄﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻮﺻﻮل اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻨﺔ ﻟﻜﻴﺎن‬

Bibliographic description

‫اﻟﻮﺻﻒ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻲ‬

‫اﻟﻮﺻﻒ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻲ‬

Bibliographic record

‫اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‬

‫اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‬

Bibliographic resource

‫اﻟﻤﺼﺪر اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻲ‬

‫اﻟﻤﺼﺪر اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻲ‬

Bibliographic unit

‫اﻟﻮﺣﺪة اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‬

‫اﻟﻮﺣﺪة اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‬

165

Collection Concept Controlled form of name Conventional name Corporate body Creator Descriptive cataloguing

‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ‬

‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ‬

‫ﻣﻔﻬﻮم‬

‫ﻣﻔﻬﻮم‬

‫اﻟﺸﻜﻞ اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻦ ﻟﻼﺳﻢ‬

‫اﻟﺸﻜﻞ اﻟﻤﻀﺒﻮط ﻟﻼﺳﻢ‬

‫اﻻﺳﻢ اﻟﺸﺎﺋﻊ‬

‫اﻻﺳﻢ اﻻﺻﻄﻼﺣﻲ‬

‫اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺔ‬

‫اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺔ‬

‫اﻟﺼﺎﻧﻊ‬

‫اﻟﻤﻨﺸﺊ‬

‫اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻮﺻﻔﻴﺔ‬

‫اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻮﺻﻔﻴﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻜﻴﺎن‬

Entity Event

‫اﻟﺤﺪث‬

‫اﻟﺤﺪث‬

Expression

‫اﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ‬

‫اﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ‬

Family

‫اﻟﻌﺎﺋﻠﺔ‬

‫اﻟﻌﺎﺋﻠﺔ‬

Heading

‫اﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ‬

‫اﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ‬

Item

‫اﻟﻮﻋﺎء‬

‫اﻟﻮﻋﺎء‬

‫اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻟﻤﻔﺘﺎﺣﻲ‬

‫اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻟﻤﻔﺘﺎﺣﻲ‬

Key title Manifestation

‫اﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ‬

‫اﻟﻤﻈﻬﺮ‬

Name

‫اﻻﺳﻢ‬

‫اﻻﺳﻢ‬

Object

‫اﻟﺠﺴﻢ‬

‫اﻟﺠﺴﻢ‬

Person

‫اﻟﺸﺨﺺ‬

‫اﻟﺸﺨﺺ‬

‫اﻟﻤﻜﺎن‬

‫اﻟﻤﻜﺎن‬

‫اﻟﺸﻜﻞ اﻟﻤﺎدي‬

‫اﻟﺸﻜﻞ اﻟﻤﺎدي‬

‫اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔ‬

‫اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔ‬

Place Physical format Subject cataloguing Uniform title Work

‫اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻦ‬ ‫اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‬

‫اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻟﻤﻮﺣﺪ‬ ‫اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‬

Recommendations and suggestions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Initiate a cooperative Arabic Authority file (Classical/Modern) Unify the local practices Enhance Arabic bibliographic tools (individual/organizational) Change well established names in English to their original forms (e.g. from Avicenna to Ibn Sina, from Averroes to Ibn Rushd, from Avempace to Ibn Bajjah and from Alhazen to Ibn al-Haytham) 6. Work on creating Arabic Rules Interpretations (ARI)

166

‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﻷوﻟﻰ‪-‬أﺳﻤﺎء اﻷﺷﺨﺎص‬ ‫إﻳﻤﺎن ﺧﻴﺮي‪ ،‬ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ اﻹﺳﻜﻨﺪرﻳﺔ )رﺋﻴﺴﺎ(‬ ‫ﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ رﻳﺎض‪ ،‬ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ اﻟﻜﻮﻧﺠﺮس‪ ،‬ﻣﻜﺘﺐ اﻟﻘﺎهﺮة )ﻣﻘﺮرا(‬

‫اﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﻮن‬ ‫اﻷردن‬ ‫ﻋﻴﺴﻰ ﻻﻟﻮ‪ ،‬اﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻷردﻧﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﻠﻮم واﻟﺘﻜﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‬ ‫اﻹﻣﺎرات اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪة‬ ‫ﻣﺮﻳﺎم اﻟﺸﻤﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻹﻣﺎرات اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪة‬ ‫ﻣﻨﻴﺮ أﺑﻮ ﺑﻜﺮ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ زاﻳﺪ‬ ‫اﻟﺒﺤﺮﻳﻦ‬ ‫ﻣﺤﻤﺪ أﺣﻤﺪ اﻟﺠﺎرﺣﻲ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﺒﺤﺮﻳﻦ‬ ‫ﻋﻤﺎن‬ ‫ﺧﻠﻔﺎم زهﺮان اﻟﺤﺠﻲ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن ﻗﺎﺑﻮس‬ ‫ﻓﻠﺴﻄﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﻧﺠﻼ ﺷﺮاﺑﺎﺗﻲ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺑﺮزت‬ ‫ﻟﺒﻨﺎن‬ ‫أﺣﻤﺪ ﻃﺎﻟﺐ‪ ،‬اﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﻠﺒﻨﺎﻧﻴﺔ اﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻟﻴﺒﻴﺎ‬ ‫ﺻﺎﻟﺢ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻧﺠﻢ‪ ،‬ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﺑﻨﻐﺎزي اﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻣﺼﺮ‬ ‫أﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﺟﻤﺎل ﻣﺠﺎهﺪ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﻤﻨﻮﻓﻴﺔ‬ ‫أﻧﺴﺎم ﺑﺮاﻧﻖ‪ ،‬ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ اﻟﻜﻮﻧﺠﺮس‪ ،‬ﻣﻜﺘﺐ اﻟﻘﺎهﺮة‬ ‫إﻳﻤﺎن ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﻘﺎدر ﻣﺤﻤﺪ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﻘﺎهﺮة‬ ‫ﺳﻬﺎم ﺷﻤﺲ اﻟﺪﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﻘﺎهﺮة‬ ‫ﺷﺎدﻳﺔ اﻟﺤﻨﻔﻲ‪ ،‬اﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺎهﺮة‬ ‫ﻋﺪﻻت إﺑﺮاهﻴﻢ أﺣﻤﺪ‪ ،‬دار اﻟﻜﺘﺐ اﻟﻤﺼﺮﻳﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻐﺮب‬ ‫ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ رﺷﻴﻖ‪ ،‬ﻣﺆﺳﺴﺔ اﻟﻤﻠﻚ ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﻌﺰﻳﺰ ﺁل ﺳﻌﻮد‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻤﻠﻜﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺻﺎﻟﺢ اﻟﻤﺴﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ اﻟﻤﻠﻚ ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﻌﺰﻳﺰ اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‬

‫ﻧﻘﺎط اﻟﻤﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻨﺎﻗ ﺸﺎت اﻟﺮﺋﻴ ﺴﻴﺔ واﻟﻤ ﺪاﺧﻼت ﻣ ﻦ اﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﻴﻦ دارت ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪا ﺣﻮل ﻧﻘﺎط اﻹﺗﺎﺣﺔ اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺄﺳﻤﺎء اﻷﺷﺨﺎص واﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻤﻄﺒﻘﺔ‬ ‫ﻓﻲ اﻟﺒﻠﺪان اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‬

‫‪167‬‬

‫اﻟﻤﺤﺎور اﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻴﺔ‬ ‫‪.1‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬ ‫‪.4‬‬

‫ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﻣﺴﻮدة ﺑﻴﺎن ﻣﺒﺎدئ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻤﻴﺔ )ﻧﻘﺎط اﻹﺗﺎﺣﺔ ‪(5‬‬ ‫ﻧﻈﺮة ﻋﺎﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع اﻷول ﻟﻺﻓﻼ ﻟﻠﺨﺒﺮاء ﻓﻲ ﻣﺠﺎل اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ )ﻓﺮاﻧﻜﻔﻮرت‪ ،‬أﻟﻤﺎﻧﻴﺎ ‪ (2003‬واﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ‬ ‫)ﺑﻴﻮﻧﺲ أﻳﺮس‪ ،‬اﻷرﺟﻨﺘﻴﻦ ‪(2004‬‬ ‫ﻣﺴﺮد اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت وﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت إﻟﻰ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﺘﻮﺻﻴﺎت واﻟﻤﻘﺘﺮﺣﺎت‬

‫ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﻣﺴﻮدة ﺑﻴﺎن ﻣﺒﺎدئ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻤﻴﺔ‬ ‫أﺟﻤ ﻊ اﻟﻤ ﺸﺎرآﻮن ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻤﻮاﻓﻘﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻤﺒﺎدئ اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﻤﺴﻮدة ﺑﻴﺎن ﻣﺒﺎدئ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻤﻴﺔ اﻟﺼﺎدرة ﻓﻲ ﺳﺒﺘﻤﺒﺮ ‪2005‬‬ ‫وأﺑ ﺪوا رﺿ ﺎهﻢ اﻟ ﺘﺎم ﺑﻤﺎ ورد ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ أن اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪ هﻮ اﻟﻬﺪف‪ .‬وﺗﻢ إﺿﺎﻓﺔ آﻠﻤﺘﻴﻦ ﻟﻠﻨﺺ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﻴﺰي )اﻟﻠﻐﺔ ‪ (5.1.3‬ﻟﻠﺘﻮﺿﻴﺢ‬ ‫وهﻤ ﺎ إﺿ ﺎﻓﺔ آﻠﻤﺔ “‪ „Sources‬ﻟﺘﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ‪ Reference Sources‬وإﺿﺎﻓﺔ آﻠﻤﺔ ‪ Cross‬ﻟﺘﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ‪Cross-‬‬ ‫‪ References-‬وﻋﺪم اﻟﻠﺒﺲ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ‪.‬‬

‫اﻟﻤﻨﺎﻗﺸﺎت اﻟﺘﻔﺼﻴﻠﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﺎل اﻟﺨﺎﻣﺲ „ﻧﻘﺎط اﻹﺗﺎﺣﺔ“‬ ‫ﺗ ﻢ ﻋﻤ ﻞ ﻣﻘﺎرﻧ ﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﺎ هﻮ ﻣﻮﺟﻮد ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺒﺎدئ وﺑﻴﻦ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻷﻧﺠﻠﻮ‪-‬أﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ وهﻲ اﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻄﺒﻖ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺎت دول‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﻴﻦ وﺑﻴﺎن أوﺟﻪ اﻻﺧﺘﻼف واﻻﺗﻔﺎق‪.‬‬ ‫أ‪ .‬اﻟﻜﻨﻴﺔ‬ ‫ه ﻞ ﻳ ﺘﻢ اﻹﺑﻘ ﺎء ﻋﻠ ﻴﻬﺎ أم ﻻ؟ ﻓﻔ ﻲ ﺑﻌ ﺾ اﻟﻤ ﺼﺎدر اﻟﻤ ﺮﺟﻌﻴﺔ ﻳ ﺘﻢ ﺣ ﺬف اﻟﻜﻨ ﻴﺔ ﻣ ﻦ اﻻﺳ ﻢ )اﻷﺳ ﻤﺎء اﻟﻜﻼﺳ ﻴﻜﻴﺔ( ﻣﺜﻞ ﺣﺬف أﺑﻮ‬ ‫ﻋ ﺜﻤﺎن ﻣ ﻦ اﻟﺘ ﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻻﺳ ﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ اﻟﺨﺎﺻ ﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺠ ﺎﺣﻆ )ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠ ﺔ ﻣﻜﺘ ﺒﺔ اﻟﻜﻮﻧﺠ ﺮس( ﻓ ﻲ ﺣ ﻴﻦ أن ﺑﻌ ﺾ اﻟﻤ ﺼﺎدر اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ )اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻢ‬ ‫وﺿﻌﻬﺎ ﺑﻮاﺳﻄﺔ ﻣﺘﺨﺼﺼﻴﻦ ﻋﺮب( ﺗﺒﻘﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻜﻨﻴﺔ آﺠﺰء أﺻﻴﻞ ﻣﻦ اﻻﺳﻢ )ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ د‪ .‬ﺷﻌﺒﺎن ﺧﻠﻴﻔﺔ(‬ ‫ب‪ .‬اﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﻸﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻜﻼﺳﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﻋﻦ اﻷﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﺤﺪﻳﺜﺔ‬ ‫ه ﻨﺎك رأي ﻳ ﻨﺎدي ﺑﻌ ﺪم وﺿ ﻊ ﻓ ﻮارق ﻣﺎ ﺑﻴﻦ اﻻﺳﻢ اﻟﺤﺪﻳﺚ واﻻﺳﻢ اﻟﻘﺪﻳﻢ وإﺟﺮاء ﻧﻔﺲ اﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ دون اﻟﺘﻘﻴﺪ ﺑﺰﻣﻦ ﻣﻴﻼد أو وﻓﺎة‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺆﻟ ﻒ ودون ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠ ﺔ ﺧﺎﺻ ﺔ ﻟﻸﺳ ﻤﺎء اﻟﻘﺪﻳﻤ ﺔ‪ ،‬وﺗ ﻢ ﻣﻌﺎرﺿ ﺔ هﺬا اﻟﺮأي ﻣﻦ اﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﻴﻦ واﻟﺴﺒﺐ أن اﻟﺠﺰء اﻷﺷﻬﺮ‬ ‫ﻣ ﻦ اﻻﺳ ﻢ اﻟﻌﺮﺑ ﻲ اﻟﻘ ﺪﻳﻢ اﻟ ﺬي ﻳ ﺴﺘﻘﻰ ﻣ ﻦ اﻟﻤ ﺮاﺟﻊ ﻳ ﺴﺘﺨﺪم آﻌﻨ ﺼﺮ ﻟﻤ ﺪﺧﻞ اﻻﺳ ﻢ‪ ،‬أﻣ ﺎ أﺳ ﻤﺎء اﻷﺷ ﺨﺎص اﻟﻌ ﺮب ﻓ ﻲ اﻟﻘ ﺮن‬ ‫اﻟﻌﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻻ ﺗﺤﺘﻮي ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﺰء أﺷﻬﺮ ﻟﻼﺳﻢ وﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ ﺗﺪﺧﻞ اﻷﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﺤﺪﻳﺜﺔ ﺗﺤﺖ اﻟﻌﻨﺼﺮ اﻷﺧﻴﺮ ﻟﻼﺳﻢ )اﻟﻠﻘﺐ(‬ ‫ج‪ .‬اﻗﺘ ﺮاح دراﺳ ﺔ ﺑﻴ ﺌﺔ اﻟﺤﻮﺳ ﺒﺔ اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺎﻷﻧﻈﻤﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ ﻣﻦ أﺟﻞ اﻟﻮﻗﻮف ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺪى ﺗﻮاﻓﻘﻬﺎ ﻣﻊ اﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ‬ ‫ﻓﻘ ﺪ أﺛﻴ ﺮت ﻧﻘﻄ ﺔ ﺟ ﺪل ﺣ ﻮل أداة اﻟﺘﻌ ﺮﻳﻒ „ال“ ﻓ ﻲ أﺳ ﻤﺎء اﻷﺷ ﺨﺎص وه ﻞ ﻣ ﻦ اﻷﻓ ﻀﻞ ﺗ ﺮآﻬﺎ أم ﺣ ﺬﻓﻬﺎ وﻗ ﺪ ﻋﻠ ﻖ ﺑﻌ ﺾ‬ ‫اﻟﻤ ﺸﺎرآﻴﻦ ﺑ ﺄن ه ﺬﻩ اﻟﻤ ﺴﺎﺋﻞ اﻟﻤ ﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑ ﻨﻈﻢ اﻻﺳﺘﺮﺟﺎع ﻳﺠﺐ أن ﺗﺘﺮك ﻟﻠﺘﻜﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ اﻟﻤﺘﻄﻮرة ﻟﻠﻨﻈﻢ اﻟﻤﻌﺮﺑﺔ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺎﻣﻞ‪ ،‬ﻓﻌﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﺳﺒﻴﻞ اﻟﻤﺜﺎل ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻧﻈﻢ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن ﺗﺘﺠﺎهﻞ أداة اﻟﺘﻌﺮﻳﻒ „ال“ ﺑﺪون اﻟﺤﺎﺟﺔ ﻟﺤﺬﻓﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺪﺧﻞ اﻻﺳﻢ‪.‬‬ ‫د‪ .‬اﻟﻠﻐﺔ واﻟﻨﻘﺤﺮة )‪(5.1.3‬‬ ‫ﺗﻢ ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ اﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ اﻟﻔﻨﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ذات اﻟﻤﺪاﺧﻞ ﺑﺎﻷﺳﻤﺎء اﻷﺟﻨﺒﻴﺔ وﺑﺎﻟﻤﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ اﺧﺘﻴﺎر ﻟﻐﺔ وﺣﺮوف‬ ‫آ ﺘﺎﺑﺔ أﺳ ﻤﺎء اﻷﺷ ﺨﺎص اﻟﻌ ﺮب آ ﻨﻘﺎط إﺗﺎﺣ ﺔ ﻓ ﻲ اﻟﺘ ﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟ ﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ﻷﻋﻤ ﺎﻟﻬﻢ اﻟﻤﺘ ﺮﺟﻤﺔ ﻟﻠﻐ ﺎت ﺗﻜ ﺘﺐ ﺑﻐﻴ ﺮ اﻷﺣ ﺮف‬ ‫اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫وأﺟﻤﻊ اﻟﻐﺎﻟﺒﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ أﻧﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﻨﻄﻖ وﺿﻊ اﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ ﺑﻠﻐﺔ أﺟﻨﺒﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺣﻴﻦ أن ﺑﻘﻴﺔ اﻟﻮﺻﻒ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻲ ﻟﻠﻌﻤﻞ ﺑﻠﻐﺔ وﺣﺮوف‬ ‫أﺧﺮى‪.‬‬ ‫ﺑﻌ ﺾ اﻟﻤ ﺸﺎرآﻴﻦ أﻗ ﺮوا ﺗﻄﺒ ﻴﻖ ه ﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﻤﺎرﺳ ﺔ ﻓ ﻲ ﻣﻜﺘ ﺒﺎﺗﻬﻢ وه ﻲ إدﺧ ﺎل اﻷﺳ ﻤﺎء ﺑﺤ ﺴﺐ ﻟﻐ ﺔ اﻟﻤﺆﻟ ﻒ اﻷﺻ ﻠﻴﺔ ﻣ ﺜﻞ إدﺧ ﺎل‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔ ﻴﻦ اﻷﺟﺎﻧ ﺐ ﻓ ﻲ اﻟﺘ ﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟ ﺮاﻓﻴﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻟﻐﺘﻬﻢ اﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ ﺗﺠﻨﺒﺎ ﻟﻠﻮﻗﻮع ﻓﻲ ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﻧﻘﺤﺮة اﻷﺳﻤﺎء ﻣﻦ‬ ‫اﻷﺣ ﺮف اﻟﻼﺗﻴﻨ ﻴﺔ ﻟﻸﺣ ﺮف اﻟﻌ ﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺣ ﻴﺚ ﻻ ﺗ ﻮﺟﺪ ﻗ ﻮاﻋﺪ ﻗﻴﺎﺳ ﻴﺔ ﻟﻨﻘﺤ ﺮة اﻷﺳ ﻤﺎء إﻟ ﻰ اﻟﻠﻐ ﺔ اﻟﻌ ﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪ ،‬وﻟﻜﻦ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ‬ ‫ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ ﻟﻠﻨﻘﺤﺮة ﻣﻦ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ إﻟﻰ اﻷﺣﺮف اﻟﻼﺗﻴﻨﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫وﻣﻊ ذﻟﻚ ﻳﺒﻘﻰ اﻟﺴﺆال هﻞ ﻳﺠﺐ ﺗﻘﻨﻴﻦ أﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻴﻦ اﻟﻌﺮب ﻣﻨﻘﺤﺮة ﻓﻲ أﻋﻤﺎﻟﻬﻢ اﻟﻤﺘﺮﺟﻤﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻌﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ اﻟﻤﺜﺎل‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ إدﺧﺎل‬ ‫ﻧﺠ ﻴﺐ ﻣﺤﻔ ﻮظ آﻤﺪﺧﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ ﺑﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ﻟﺮواﻳﺔ ﻟﻪ ﻣﺘﺮﺟﻤﺔ إﻟﻰ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻷﺳﺒﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﺜﻼ ﻳﺘﻢ إدﺧﺎل اﻹﺳﻢ ﺑﺎﻷﺣﺮف اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ أم‬ ‫اﻟﻼﺗﻴﻨﻴﺔ‪) .‬ﺗﻢ اﻗﺘﺮاح اﻟﺘﺼﻮﻳﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻨﻘﻄﺔ ‪(5.1.3‬‬

‫‪168‬‬

‫أوﺻ ﺖ اﻟﻤﺠﻤ ﻮﻋﺔ ﺑﺈﺗﺎﺣ ﺔ ﻣ ﺘﻌﺪدة اﻟﻠﻐ ﺎت ﻻﺳ ﺘﺮﺟﺎع اﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔ ﻴﻦ اﻟﻌ ﺮب آﻠﻤ ﺎ أﻣﻜ ﻦ ذﻟ ﻚ‪ ،‬وذﻟ ﻚ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺣﻘﻮل اﻟﺮﺑﻂ أو ﻋﻦ‬ ‫ﻃ ﺮﻳﻖ اﻹﺣﺎﻻت ﻟﺘﺠﻨﺐ وﺟﻮد آﺸﺎﻓﻴﻦ ﻣﻨﻔﺼﻠﻴﻦ ﻟﻠﻤﺆﻟﻔﻴﻦ أﺣﺪهﻢ ﺑﺎﻷﺣﺮف اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ واﻷﺧﺮ ﺑﺎﻷﺣﺮف اﻟﻼﺗﻴﻨﻴﺔ‪ .‬آﻤﺎ ﺗﻢ اﻟﺘﺮﺣﻴﺐ‬ ‫ﺑﻤ ﺸﺮوع „ﻣﻠ ﻒ اﻻﺳ ﺘﻨﺎد اﻟﺪوﻟ ﻲ اﻻﻓﺘﺮاﺿ ﻲ“ ﻷﻧ ﻪ ﺳ ﻮف ﻳﻤﻜ ﻦ اﻟﻤ ﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪﻳﻦ ﻣ ﻦ اﺧﺘ ﻴﺎر اﻟﻠﻐ ﺔ واﻟﺤ ﺮوف وأﻳ ﻀﺎ ﺷ ﻜﻞ اﻻﺳﻢ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﻟﻠﺒﺤﺚ اﻟﺨﺎص ﺑﻬﻢ‪.‬‬ ‫وآﺎﻧ ﺖ ﻣﺤ ﺼﻠﺔ اﻟﻤﻨﺎﻗ ﺸﺎت اﻟﺘﺄآ ﻴﺪ ﻋﻠ ﻰ أن اﻟﺠﻬ ﻮد اﻟﻔﺮدﻳﺔ ﻳﺠﺐ أن ﺗﺘﻮاﻓﻖ ﻣﻊ اﻟﻤﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ اﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻀﺒﻂ أﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎدي ﻟﻸﺳﻤﺎء‬ ‫اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻟﺘﺴﻬﻴﻞ ﻣﺸﺮوﻋﺎت اﻟﺘﺒﺎدل ﻟﻠﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ واﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫اﻟﻤﺴﺮد‬ ‫ﺗ ﻢ ﻋﻤ ﻞ ﻣﻨﺎﻗ ﺸﺎت ﺗﻔ ﺼﻴﻠﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤ ﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت اﻟﻌ ﺮﺑﻴﺔ اﻟ ﻮاردة ﻓ ﻲ اﻟﻤ ﺴﺮد‪ .‬وﺗ ﻢ ﻋﻤ ﻞ اﻗﺘﺮاع ﺑﻮاﺳﻄﺔ اﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﻴﻦ ﺳﻮاء ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺒﻮل أو‬ ‫اﻟﺮﻓﺾ واﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻞ‪ .‬وأﻳﻀﺎ ﺗﻢ اﻗﺘﺮاح إدراج ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت إﺿﺎﻓﻴﺔ وﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ اﻻﻗﺘﺮاع ﻣﺒﻴﻨﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺠﺪول اﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ‪:‬‬

‫اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺢ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﻴﺰي‬

‫اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺢ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻲ‬

‫اﻟﻘﺒﻮل‬

‫ﻧﻘﻄﺔ اﻟﻮﺻﻮل‬

‫ﻧﻘﻄﺔ اﻹﺗﺎﺣﺔ‬

‫‪Agent‬‬

‫اﻟﻌﺎﻣﻞ‬

‫اﻟﻤﺴﺌﻮل‬

‫‪Attribute‬‬

‫اﻟﺤﻘﻞ‬

‫ﺻﻔﺔ‬

‫‪Access point‬‬

‫‪Author‬‬ ‫‪Authority record‬‬

‫اﻟﻤﺆﻟﻒ‬

‫اﻟﻤﺆﻟﻒ‬

‫اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ‬

‫اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻦ – ﻧﻘﻄﺔ‬ ‫اﻹﺗﺎﺣﺔ اﻟﻤﻮﺣﺪة‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻀﺒﻮﻃﺔ ﻟﻜﻴﺎن‬

‫‪Authorized‬‬ ‫– ‪heading‬‬ ‫‪The uniform‬‬ ‫‪controlled access‬‬ ‫‪point for an entity‬‬

‫اﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻦ – ﻧﻘﻄﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻮﺻﻮل اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻨﺔ ﻟﻜﻴﺎن‬

‫‪Bibliographic‬‬ ‫‪description‬‬

‫اﻟﻮﺻﻒ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻲ‬

‫اﻟﻮﺻﻒ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻲ‬

‫‪Bibliographic‬‬ ‫‪record‬‬

‫اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‬

‫اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‬

‫‪Bibliographic‬‬ ‫‪resource‬‬

‫اﻟﻤﺼﺪر اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻲ‬

‫اﻟﻤﺼﺪر اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻲ‬

‫‪Bibliographic‬‬ ‫‪unit‬‬

‫اﻟﻮﺣﺪة اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‬

‫اﻟﻮﺣﺪة اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ‬

‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ‬

‫ﻣﻔﻬﻮم‬

‫ﻣﻔﻬﻮم‬

‫‪Collection‬‬ ‫‪Concept‬‬ ‫‪Controlled form‬‬ ‫‪of name‬‬ ‫‪Conventional‬‬ ‫‪name‬‬ ‫‪Corporate body‬‬

‫‪169‬‬

‫اﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻞ‬

‫اﻟﺸﻜﻞ اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻦ ﻟﻼﺳﻢ‬

‫اﻟﺸﻜﻞ اﻟﻤﻀﺒﻮط ﻟﻼﺳﻢ‬

‫اﻻﺳﻢ اﻟﺸﺎﺋﻊ‬

‫اﻻﺳﻢ اﻻﺻﻄﻼﺣﻲ‬

‫اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺔ‬

‫اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺔ‬

‫اﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ‬

‫‪Creator‬‬ ‫‪Descriptive‬‬ ‫‪cataloguing‬‬

‫اﻟﺼﺎﻧﻊ‬

‫اﻟﻤﻨﺸﺊ‬

‫اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻮﺻﻔﻴﺔ‬

‫اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻮﺻﻔﻴﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻜﻴﺎن‬

‫‪Entity‬‬ ‫‪Event‬‬

‫اﻟﺤﺪث‬

‫اﻟﺤﺪث‬

‫‪Expression‬‬

‫اﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ‬

‫اﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ‬

‫‪Family‬‬

‫اﻟﻌﺎﺋﻠﺔ‬

‫اﻟﻌﺎﺋﻠﺔ‬

‫‪Heading‬‬

‫اﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ‬

‫اﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ‬

‫‪Item‬‬

‫اﻟﻮﻋﺎء‬

‫اﻟﻮﻋﺎء‬

‫اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻟﻤﻔﺘﺎﺣﻲ‬

‫اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻟﻤﻔﺘﺎﺣﻲ‬

‫‪Key title‬‬ ‫‪Manifestation‬‬

‫اﻟﻤﻈﻬﺮ‬

‫اﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ‬

‫‪Name‬‬

‫اﻻﺳﻢ‬

‫اﻻﺳﻢ‬

‫‪Object‬‬

‫اﻟﺠﺴﻢ‬

‫اﻟﺠﺴﻢ‬

‫‪Person‬‬

‫اﻟﺸﺨﺺ‬

‫اﻟﺸﺨﺺ‬

‫اﻟﻤﻜﺎن‬

‫اﻟﻤﻜﺎن‬

‫اﻟﺸﻜﻞ اﻟﻤﺎدي‬

‫اﻟﺸﻜﻞ اﻟﻤﺎدي‬

‫اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔ‬

‫اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔ‬

‫‪Place‬‬ ‫‪Physical format‬‬ ‫‪Subject‬‬ ‫‪cataloguing‬‬ ‫‪Uniform title‬‬ ‫‪Work‬‬

‫اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻦ‬ ‫اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‬

‫اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻟﻤﻮﺣﺪ‬ ‫اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‬

‫اﻟﺘﻮﺻﻴﺎت واﻟﻤﻘﺘﺮﺣﺎت‬ ‫إﻧﺸﺎء ﻣﻠﻒ اﺳﺘﻨﺎدي ﺗﻌﺎوﻧﻲ ﻟﻸﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ )اﻟﻜﻼﺳﻴﻜﻴﺔ‪/‬اﻟﺤﺪﻳﺜﺔ(‬‫ﺗﻮﺣﻴﺪ اﻟﻤﻤﺎرﺳﺎت اﻟﻤﺤﻠﻴﺔ‬‫ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ أدوات اﻟﻀﺒﻂ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺑﻮاﺳﻄﺔ اﻟﻤﺆﺳﺴﺎت وﻟﻴﺲ اﻷﻓﺮاد‪.‬‬‫ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻷﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻜﻼﺳﻴﻜﻴﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺄﺷﻬﺮ ﻋﻠﻤﺎء اﻟﺤﻀﺎرة اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺷﻜﻠﻬﺎ اﻷﺟﻨﺒﻲ إﻟﻰ ﺷﻜﻠﻬﺎ اﻷﺻﻠﻲ )ﻣﺜﻞ‬‫اﺑﻦ ﺳﻴﻨﺎ واﺑﻦ رﺷﺪ واﺑﻦ ﺑﺎﺟﺔ واﺑﻦ اﻟﻬﻴﺜﻢ(‪.‬‬ ‫إﻋﺪاد أداة ﻗﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻣﻮﺣﺪة ﻟﻨﻘﺤﺮة اﻷﺳﻤﺎء اﻷﺟﻨﺒﻴﺔ إﻟﻰ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻣﺜﻴﻼ ﻟﻸدوات اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻧﻘﺤﺮة اﻷﺳﻤﺎء‬‫اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ إﻟﻰ ﻟﻐﺎت أﺟﻨﺒﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫‪-‬اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ إﻧﺸﺎء ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮات ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪170‬‬

Working Group 2 – Corporate Names Ali K. Shaker, Al-Minia University, Egypt (GROUP LEADER) Mon Abdel Kader, Cairo University, Egypt (RECORDER)

Participants Egypt Mohamed Albiltagy Lebanon Lopitta Katan Fares Libya Ali Mohamed Khalief Palestine Abu Ghdeib-Shalash Suhaila Ibrahim Saudi Arabia Othman Mohhamed Al asmara Tunisia Khaled Habashi United Arab Emirates Jasim M. Jirjees Younis Al Shawabakeh Ibrahim Muhhamed Al-Tenaiji Goal: Harmonization of entities and a list of minimal practical proposals for corporate identity Issues: How do current rules recognize when a corporate body changes/when to make a new authority record for the body? What links are made for earlier/later names of the corporate body? Introduction: Working group 2 confirms the importance of updating Paris Principles for cataloging. The whole group has gone through every part of the draft statement, with special attention on corporate bodies. Generally, the draft is fine, with some exceptions listed below. We would like to thank every body involved in this process, from all around the world. Special thanks go to Dr. Barbara Tillett.

171

Recommendation on Draft Statement of International Cataloging Principles Section 5.1.2.1 Persona. The group confused the meaning of the word „persona.” Therefore, recommended changing it either by another word (i.e., distinctive entity), or adding the word to the Glossary with a clear definition. Section 5.1.3 Language. The group also confused whether this section is talking about the language/script of the corporate body, or the manifestation. Recommendation is given for highlighting the language of the manifestation. In addition, the word „references” in this section means reference sources, but some people may think of it as „cross-references.” So, it will be better to distinguish it by replacing to „reference sources. 5.4.1.1 Direct Order. Some countries represented in the group have different practices than the principles. The concern was on the time/effort required to adhere to the principles here. Also, there is a typo. The word „from” should be „form.” Glossary. Arabic Glossary should be reviewed extensively. Some terms need to be added, such as „user of the catalog.” Other terms have to be omitted, such as „agent.” Principles vs. Rules. Currently used rules for corporate bodies name-change” are sufficient. Also rules are okay when to make a new authority record for the new name.

172

‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪-‬أﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺎت‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻲ آﻤﺎل ﺷﺎآﺮ )رﺋﻴﺴﺎ – ﻣﺼﺮ(‬ ‫ﻣﻨﻰ ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﻘﺎدر )ﻣﻘﺮرا – ﻣﺼﺮ(‬ ‫اﻟﺤﻀﻮر‪ :‬ﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺣﺒﺸﻲ )ﺗﻮﻧﺲ(‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﺳﻢ ﺟﺮﺟﻴﺲ )اﻹﻣﺎرات(‪ ،‬ﻟﻮﺑﻴﺘﺎ ﻗﻄﺎن ﻓﺎرس )ﻟﺒﻨﺎن(‪ ،‬ﻋﺜﻤﺎن ﻣﺤﻤﺪ اﻷﺳﻤﺮة )اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﻳﺔ(‪،‬‬ ‫ﻣﺤﻤﺪ اﻟﺒﻠﺘﺎﺟﻲ )ﻣﺼﺮ(‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻲ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺧﻠﻴﻔﺔ )ﻟﻴﺒﻴﺎ(‪ ،‬ﺳﻬﻴﻠﺔ إﺑﺮاهﻴﻢ أﺑﻮ ﻏﻀﻴﺐ ﺷﻠﺶ )ﻓﻠﺴﻄﻴﻦ(‪ ،‬ﻳﻮﻧﺲ اﻟﺸﻮاﺑﻜﺔ )اﻹﻣﺎرات(‪،‬‬ ‫إﺑﺮاهﻴﻢ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ اﻟﺘﻨﺎﺟﻲ )اﻹﻣﺎرات(‪.‬‬ ‫اﻟﻬﺪف‪ :‬ﺗﻨﺎﻏﻢ اﻟﻤﺪاﺧﻞ وﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺤﺪ اﻷدﻧﻰ ﻟﻤﻘﺘﺮﺣﺎت ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺑﺸﺄن هﻮﻳﺔ اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫اﻟﻘﻀﺎﻳﺎ‪ :‬آﻴﻒ ﺗﺪرك اﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﻐﻴﺮ ﻓﻲ اﺳﻢ هﻴﺌﺔ‪ ،‬وﻣﺘﻰ ﻳﺠﺐ إﻋﺪاد ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻬﻴﺌﺔ؟ ﻣﺎ هﻲ اﻟﺮواﺑﻂ ﺑﻴﻦ‬ ‫اﻷﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻘﺪﻳﻤﺔ واﻟﺤﺪﻳﺜﺔ ﻟﻠﻬﻴﺌﺎت؟‬ ‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ‪:‬‬ ‫ﺗﺆآﺪ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ أهﻤﻴﺔ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺚ ﻣﺒﺎدئ ﺑﺎرﻳﺲ ﻟﻠﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ راﺟﻌﺖ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ أﺟﺰاء ﺑﻴﺎن اﻟﻤﺒﺎدئ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﺷﻜﻠﻪ اﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻊ اﻻهﺘﻤﺎم ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺧﺎص ﺑﺄﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺎت‪ .‬ﺑﺼﻔﺔ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ ﻳﻌﺘﺒﺮ اﻟﺒﻴﺎن ﺟﻴﺪا‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻦ هﻨﺎك ﺑﻌﺾ اﻻﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎءات ﺳﻮف‬ ‫ﻧﺬآﺮهﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻗﻠﻴﻞ‪ .‬ﺗﻮد اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺗﻮﺟﻴﻪ اﻟﺸﻜﺮ ﻟﺠﻤﻴﻊ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻤﻞ وﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﻓﻲ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ أﻧﺤﺎء اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ‪ ،‬وﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺧﺎص‬ ‫دآﺘﻮرة ﺑﺎرﺑﺎرة ﺗﻴﻠﻴﺖ‪.‬‬ ‫اﻗﺘﺮاﺣﺎت اﻟﺒﻴﺎن اﻷوﻟﻲ ﻟﻤﺒﺎدئ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺟﺰء ‪ 5.1.2.1‬آﻠﻤﺔ ”‪ .„Persona‬اﻟﺘﺒﺲ اﻷﻣﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺑﺸﺄن اﻟﻤﻘﺼﻮد ﺑﻜﻠﻤﺔ ”‪ .„persona‬وﻣﻦ ﺛﻢ اﻗﺘﺮﺣﺖ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ إﻣﺎ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺑﺄﺧﺮى )ﻣﺜﻞ ‪ (distinctive entity‬أو إﺿﺎﻓﺔ اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ إﻟﻰ ﻣﺴﺮد اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت‪ ،‬ﻣﺼﺤﻮﺑﺔ ﺑﺘﻌﺮﻳﻒ‬ ‫واﺿﺢ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺟﺰء ‪ 5.1.3‬اﻟﻠﻐﺔ‪ .‬اﻟﺘﺒﺲ اﻷﻣﺮ أﻳﻀﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺣﻮل ﻣﺎ إذا آﺎن هﺬا اﻟﺠﺰء ﻳﺘﺤﺪث ﻋﻦ ﻟﻐﺔ اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺔ أم ﻟﻐﺔ اﻟﻮﻋﺎء‪ .‬وﻣﻦ ﺛﻢ‬ ‫اﻗﺘﺮﺣﺖ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ إﺑﺮاز ﻟﻐﺔ اﻟﻮﻋﺎء ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎرهﺎ اﻷﺳﺎس ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ‪ .‬وﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ إﻟﻰ ذﻟﻚ ﺗﺮى اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ أن آﻠﻤﺔ‬ ‫”‪ „references‬هﻨﺎ ﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﺑﻬﺎ ”‪ „reference sources‬ﻟﻜﻦ اﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﻗﺪ ﻳﻌﺘﻘﺪ أن اﻟﻤﻘﺼﻮد ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ هﺬا اﻟﺠﺰء ‪„cross-‬‬ ‫”‪ . references‬وﻣﻦ ﺛﻢ وﺟﺐ اﻟﺘﻤﻴﻴﺰ‪.‬‬‫ﺟﺰء ‪ 5.4.1.1‬اﻟﺘﺮﺗﻴﺐ اﻟﻤﺒﺎﺷﺮ‪ .‬ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﺪول اﻟﻤﻤﺜﻠﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻟﺪﻳﻪ ﻣﻤﺎرﺳﺎت ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻋﻦ اﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ‪ .‬وهﻮ اﻷﻣﺮ اﻟﺬي‬ ‫ﻗﺪ ﻳﺤﺘﺎج ﺟﻬﺪ ووﻗﺖ آﺒﻴﺮﻳﻦ ﻟﻠﺘﻮاﻓﻖ ﻣﻊ اﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ ﺑﺸﺄن ﺻﻴﺎﻏﺔ أﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺎت‪ .‬أﻳﻀﺎ هﻨﺎك ﺧﻄﺄ ﻣﻄﺒﻌﻲ ﻓﻲ آﻠﻤﺔ ”‪„from‬‬ ‫واﻟﺼﺤﻴﺢ ”‪.„form‬‬ ‫ﻣﺴﺮد اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت‪ .‬ﻳﺤﺘﺎج ﻣﺴﺮد اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﺷﺎﻣﻠﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻬﻨﺎك ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت اﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﺠﺐ إﺿﺎﻓﺘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ‬ ‫”‪ „user of the catalog‬آﻤﺎ أن هﻨﺎك ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت اﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﺠﺐ ﺣﺬﻓﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ”‪.„agent‬‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺒﺎدئ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ اﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ‪ .‬ﺗﺮى ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ أن ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ آﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ أﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺎت‪ .‬آﻤﺎ ﺗﻌﺘﺒﺮ‬ ‫اﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ آﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺈﻧﺸﺎء اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻹﺳﺘﻨﺎدﻳﺔ ﻟﻸﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪة اﻟﻬﻴﺌﺎت‪.‬‬

‫‪173‬‬

WORKING GROUP 3 – SERIALITY Walid Ghali, Central Library of Islamic Manuscripts, Egypt (GROUP LEADER) Wesam Samir, Library of Congress, Cairo Office (RECORDER)

Participants Jordan Ghadeer W. Moraly Kuwait Emad Saleh al-Turkait Lebanon Ayman al-Masry Hala Birzi United Arab Emirates Kahled Ahmed al-Sabbagh The discussion of the group members was about three points. Firstly, the approval of the statement. Secondly, revising the glossary. Finally, making suggestions. The group generally agreed with the draft Statement as written although it has little concentration on the serials area as it has been mentioned in 11.1.4 and 11.5 only. In addition, the group has approved the definition of the continuing resources as mentioned in AACR2 and ISBD(CR): „Resource in any medium issued in a succession of discrete parts usually bearing numeric or chronological designations and usually having no predetermined conclusion.”

When we have to create a new record? One of the hottest issue in the discussion was the needs to create a new records for changing of title problems with serials. We suggested that this point needs more clarification with very detailed examples. Despite the number of serials in Arab countries is increasing, we have no standards for periodicals layout so that the problem is very complex.

What about the glossary? Due to FRBR, „Functional Requirement of Bibliographic Records,” there are many new terms have been added to the bibliographic control field. And there is a confusion to understand it, because some of these terms are affected by other fields such databases and networking, for instance, Manifestation, Work, Expression, and Items. Note: By the end of the report we will provide an Arabic equivalent for these terms.

Group’s Recommendations: The group had the following recommendations on the draft Statement of International Cataloguing Principles: -

Expansion of the seriality area in the cataloging codes.

174

-

Creating new record for the serial should be linked to the changing of ISSN, Five words of the title, and subject changes.

-

Publishers should work with libraries -especially in Arab countries- to determine the standard layout of the serials and monographic series.

-

The terms in glossary and its equivalent: Work = ‫اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‬ Entities = ‫اﻟﻜﻴﺎﻧﺎت‬ Manifestation = ‫اﻟﻤﻈﻬﺮ اﻟﻤﺎدي‬ Item = ‫اﻟﻮﺣﺪة أو اﻟﻤﻔﺮدة‬ Expression = ‫أﺳﻠﻮب اﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ‬

175

‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﻟﺜﺎﻟﺜﺔ‪-‬اﻟﺘﺴﻠﺴﻞ‬ ‫ﻏﺎﻟﻲ ﻧﺼﺮ )رﺋﻴﺴﺎ ‪ -‬ﻣﺼﺮ(‬ ‫وﺳﺎم ﺳﻤﻴﺮ )ﻣﻘﺮرا ‪ -‬ﻣﺼﺮ(‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﻮن‪ :‬أﻳﻤﻦ اﻟﻤﺼﺮي ﻣﻦ ﻣﺼﺮ ؛ هﺎﻟﺔ ﺑﺮزي ﻣﻦ ﻟﺒﻨﺎن ‪ ،‬ﻏﺪﻳﺮ ﻣﻮرﻟﻲ ﻣﻦ اﻷردن ‪ ،‬ﺧﺎﻟﺪ أﺣﻤﺪ اﻟﺼﺒﺎح ﻣﻦ اﻹﻣﺎرات‬ ‫اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪة ‪ ،‬ﻋﻤﺎد ﺻﺎﻟﺢ اﻟﺘﻮرآﻴﺖ ﻣﻦ دوﻟﺔ اﻟﻜﻮﻳﺖ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺗﻨﺎوﻟﺖ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ورﺷﺔ ﻋﻤﻞ اﻟﺪورﻳﺎت ﺛﻼث ﻧﻘﺎط‪ :‬أوﻟﻬﺎ اﻟﻤﻮاﻓﻘﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﻮدة ﻣﺒﺎدئ ﺑﺎرﻳﺲ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺠﺰء اﻟﺨﺎص ﺑﺎﻟﺪورﻳﺎت‬ ‫واﻟﺴﻼﺳﻞ‪ ،‬واﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺔ اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت اﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪة‪ ،‬وأﺧﻴﺮا ﺗﻘﺪﻳﻢ اﻗﺘﺮاﺣﺎت ﺗﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﻤﻮﺿﻮع ورﺷﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺑﻮﺟﻪ ﻋﺎم اﺗﻔﻘﺖ ورﺷﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﻮدة ﻣﺒﺎدئ ﺑﺎرﻳﺲ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎرهﺎ أﺳﺎﺳﺎ ﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ‪ ،‬وﻟﻜﻦ ﻣﻊ ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﺘﺤﻔﻈﺎت‬ ‫اﻟﺒﺴﻴﻄﺔ واﻟﺘﻲ أهﻤﻬﺎ ﻋﺪم ﺗﻐﻄﻴﺔ اﻟﺪورﻳﺎت واﻟﺴﻼﺳﻞ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺟﻴﺪ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺒﺎدئ ﺣﻴﺚ وردت ﻓﻲ ﻓﻘﺮﺗﻴﻦ ﻓﻘﻂ دون أى ﺗﻔﺼﻴﻼت‬ ‫أﺧﺮى وهﻤﺎ اﻟﻔﻘﺮﺗﺎن رﻗﻢ ‪ 11.1.4‬و ‪.11.5‬‬ ‫وﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ إﻟﻰ ذﻟﻚ ﻓﻘﺪ اﻋﺘﻤﺪت ورﺷﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ اﻟﺪورﻳﺎت اﻟﻮارد ﻓﻲ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻻﻧﺠﻠﻮ أﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻃﺒﻌﺘﻬﺎ اﻟﻤﻌﺪﻟﺔ‬ ‫واﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﻦ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ ﻟﻠﻮﺻﻒ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻲ ﻟﻠﺪورﻳﺎت وهﻮ"وﻋﺎء ﻣﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت ﻳﻘﺪم ﻋﻠﻰ أى وﺳﻴﻂ ﻣﺎدي أو ﺗﻜﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ وﻳﺼﺪر ﺑﺸﻜﻞ‬ ‫دوري وﻋﺎدة ﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﻮن ﻟﻪ ﺗﺮﻗﻴﻢ زﻣﻨﻲ أو ﻋﺪدي أو آﻼهﻤﺎ وﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻪ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ ﻣﺤﺪدة"‬ ‫ﻣﺘﻰ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ إﻧﺸﺎء ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪة ﻟﺪورﻳﺔ ﻣﻮﺟﻮدة ﺑﻔﻬﺮس اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺔ؟‬ ‫ﺗﻌﺪ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ أهﻢ وأﻋﻘﺪ اﻟﻘﻀﺎﻳﺎ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﺪورﻳﺎت ‪ ،‬وﺗﻜﻮن ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺎدة ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ اﻟﺘﻐﻴﺮات اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺘﻌﺮض ﻟﻬﺎ اﻟﺪورﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﻓﻲ ﻓﺘﺮات ﻋﻤﺮهﺎ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺴﺌﻮﻟﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﺎدﻳﺔ وآﺬﻟﻚ اﻟﺘﻐﻴﺮات ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﻨﻮان ‪ ،‬واﻗﺘﺮﺣﺖ ورﺷﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺿﺮورة ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ اﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﺘﻲ‬ ‫ﻳﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ اﻟﻤﻔﻬﺮس ﻓﻲ إﻧﺸﺎء ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪة ﻟﺪورﻳﺔ ﻣﻮﺟﻮدة ﻓﻲ اﻟﻔﻬﺮس ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ‪ .‬وﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺼﻌﻴﺪ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻲ ﻓﺈن هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﺸﻜﻠﺔ أآﺜﺮ‬ ‫ﺗﻌﻘﻴﺪا ﺑﺴﺒﺐ اﻟﺘﺰاﻳﺪ ﻓﻲ ﺣﺮآﺔ ﻧﺸﺮ اﻟﺪورﻳﺎت واﻟﺴﻼﺳﻞ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻮﻃﻦ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻲ ﻣﻦ ﻧﺎﺣﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬واﻓﺘﻘﺎد اﻟﻤﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ واﻟﻤﻮاﺻﻔﺎت اﻟﺘﻲ‬ ‫ﻳﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ اﻟﻨﺎﺷﺮﻳﻦ ﻓﻲ اﺧﺮاج اﻟﺪورﻳﺎت‪.‬‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت اﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪة‪:‬‬ ‫هﻨﺎك ﻋﺪد ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت واﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮات اﻟﺘﻲ ﺑﺪأ اﻟﻤﺘﺨﺼﺼﻮن ﻓﻲ ﻣﺠﺎل اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ ﺗﺪاوﻟﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻔﺘﺮة اﻷﺧﻴﺮة واﻟﻤﺸﻜﻠﺔ أن هﺬﻩ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت ﻣﺴﺘﻌﺎرة ﻣﻦ ﺗﺨﺼﺼﺎت أﺧﺮى ﻣﺜﻞ اﻟﺸﺒﻜﺎت وﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎت وﻟﻜﻦ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪم ﻓﻲ ﻣﺠﺎل اﻟﻀﺒﻂ‬ ‫اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ أن ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪم ﺑﺸﻜﻞ دﻗﻴﻖ وواﺿﺢ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺗﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﻣﻔﺎهﻴﻤﻬﺎ‪ .‬وﻓﻲ ورﺷﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺗﻨﺎول اﻷﻋﻀﺎء ﺧﻤﺴﺔ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت‬ ‫وردت ﻓﻲ ﻧﻤﻮذج اﻟﻤﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎت اﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ وهﻲ‪:‬‬ ‫‪FRBR, Expression, Item, Manifestation, Entities, Work.‬‬ ‫ﺗﻮﺻﻴﺎت واﻗﺘﺮاﺣﺎت‪:‬‬ ‫وﻓﻲ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ ورﺷﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻗﺪم اﻷﻋﻀﺎء ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻻﻗﺘﺮاﺣﺎت اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﺪورﻳﺎت واﻟﺴﻼﺳﻞ وأهﻤﻬﺎ‪:‬‬ ‫‬‫‬‫‬‫‬‫‪-‬‬

‫ﺗﻮﺳﻴﻊ اﻟﻔﻘﺮات اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﺪورﻳﺎت واﻟﺴﻼﺳﻞ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺒﺎدئ ﺑﺎرﻳﺲ‪.‬‬ ‫إﻧﺸﺎء ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪة ﻟﺪورﻳﺔ ﻣﻮﺟﻮدة ﻓﻲ ﻓﻬﺮس اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﻻﺑﺪ وأن ﺗﻜﻮن ﻣﺘﺼﻠﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺮﻗﻴﻢ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺪورﻳﺎت ‪ ISSN‬وﻓﻲ ﺟﺰء آﺒﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻌﻨﻮان وآﺬﻟﻚ إذا ﺷﻤﻞ اﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﻣﻮﺿﻮع اﻟﺪورﻳﺔ اﻷﺻﻠﻲ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻻﺑﺪ أن ﻳﻌﻤﻞ اﻟﻨﺎﺷﺮون ﻣﻊ اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺎت –ﺑﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻮﻃﻦ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻲ‪ -‬ﻟﻼﺗﻔﺎق ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ ﻣﻮﺣﺪة ﻹﺧﺮاج‬ ‫اﻟﺪورﻳﺎت ﺣﺘﻰ ﺗﺴﻬﻞ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫اﻟﺪورﻳﺎت اﻹﻟﻜﺘﺮوﻧﻴﺔ ﻳﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ آﻞ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ ﻓﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﺪورﻳﺎت واﻟﺴﻼﺳﻞ اﻟﻮاردة ﻓﻲ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻤﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻣﻊ اﻟﻮﺿﻊ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺤﺴﺒﺎن ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ اﻟﻮﻋﺎء اﻹﻟﻜﺘﺮوﻧﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ اﻹﺗﺎﺣﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻳﻔﻀﻞ أن ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪم اﻟﻤﻘﺎﺑﻼت اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت اﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪة ﻓﻲ ‪:FRBR‬‬ ‫اﻟﻌﻤﻞ = ‪Expression‬‬ ‫اﻟﻜﻴﺎﻧﺎت = ‪Entities‬‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻈﻬﺮ اﻟﻤﺎدي = ‪Manifestation‬‬ ‫اﻟﻮﺣﺪة أو اﻟﻤﻔﺮدة = ‪Item‬‬

‫‪176‬‬

WORKING GROUP 4 – UNIFORM TITLES/GMD Nedal Fayez al-Shourbagy, American University in Cairo (GROUP LEADER) Mahmoud Rashad, Library of Congress, Cairo Office (RECORDER)

Participants Egypt Manal Amin Omar Fathi Ibrahim Sabri Ibrahim Jomaa Lebanon Bughdana Hajjar Libya Mahmud M Mahfoud Morocco Abdel Majid Ben-Saud Tunisia Saeed Elanz United Arab Emirates Alaa El-Talmas The group has discussed the principles of Uniform title and GMDs, and gave some recommendations:

Recommendations regarding the draft Statement of International Cataloguing Principles (Uniform title: 5.5) After discussion the group discovered that there are some authors issue their books under many titles although the books have the same contents. In other words, the author issues a book under a title, and after a while he issues the same book under another title and mentions that it is the second issue. The principle 5.5 does not include this case, so the group suggested to add it in the definition 5.5.1, so it should be the uniform title should be the original title, the title most frequently found in manifestations or the title of the first edition if there is no most frequently title of the work. The paragraphs 5.5.1 and 5.5.1.1 are very clear in the French version, but they need to be clarified in the English version. The group suggested to merge the two paragraphs in one paragraph, and rephrase it to be 5.5.1.: The uniform title should be the original title, the title most frequently found in manifestations of the work, or the title of the first edition of the work if issued

177

under different titles in the other editions except when there is a commonly used title in the language and script of the catalogue, then the preference should be given to the language or script of the catalogue.

Recommendations regarding the draft Statement of International Cataloguing Principles (GMDs) There was a suggestion to change the place of the GMD, but the group refused this suggestion, because its place is very clear for the user, and dose not cause any confusion. The group suggested the GMD to be mandatory, not optional, as it is now. Glossary: These are some glossary terms that were discussed by the group:

Access point Creator Item Manifestation Physical format Uniform title Work

178

‫ﻧﻘﺎط اﻟﻮﺻﻮل‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺴﺌﻮل اﻟﻔﻜﺮي‬ ‫اﻟﻮﺣﺪة‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻈﻬﺮ اﻟﻤﺎدي ﻟﻠﻮﻋﺎء‬ ‫ﺷﻜﻞ اﻟﻮﻋﺎء‬ ‫اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻦ‬ ‫اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‬

‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﻟﺮاﺑﻌﺔ‪-‬اﻟﻌﻨﺎوﻳﻦ اﻟﻤﻮﺣﺪة واﻟﺘﺄﺷﻴﺮة اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﺎء‬

‫ﻧﻀﺎل ﻓﺎﻳﺰ اﻟﺸﻮرﺑﺠﻲ )رﺋﻴﺴﺎ – ﻣﺼﺮ(‬ ‫ﻣﺤﻤﻮد رﺷﺎد )ﻣﻘﺮرا – ﻣﺼﺮ(‬ ‫ﺗﻜﻮﻧﺖ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺧﺒﺮاء ﻣﻦ ﻋﺪة دول ﻋﺮﺑﻴﺔ وهﻢ ﻣﻨﺎل أﻣﻴﻦ وﻋﻤﺮ ﻓﺘﺤﻲ وإﺑﺮاهﻴﻢ ﺻﺒﺮي وإﺑﺮاهﻴﻢ ﺟﻤﻌﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺼﺮ‬ ‫وﺳﻌﻴﺪ اﻟﻌﻨﺰ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻮﻧﺲ وﺑﻐﺪاﻧﺔ ﺣﺠﺎر ﻣﻦ ﻟﺒﻨﺎن وﻣﺤﻤﻮد م‪ .‬ﻣﺤﻔﻮظ ﻣﻦ ﻟﻴﺒﻴﺎ وﻋﻼء اﻟﺘﻠﻤﺲ ﻣﻦ اﻹﻣﺎرات اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪة وﻋﺒﺪ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺠﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻌﻮد ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﻐﺮب‬

‫‪.I‬‬

‫ﺗﻮﺻﻴﺎت ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﻤﺴﻮدة ﻣﺒﺎدئ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ )اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻦ ‪:(5.5‬‬ ‫أـ‪.‬‬

‫اﺗﻀﺢ ﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ أن هﻨﺎك ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻴﻦ ﻳﺼﺪرون آﺘﺒﻬﻢ ﻓﻲ أآﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻃﺒﻌﺔ ﺗﺤﺖ أآﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻨﻮان‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺮﻏﻢ أﻧﻪ ﻧﻔﺲ اﻟﻜﺘﺎب ﺑﻨﻔﺲ اﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮى‪ .‬وﺑﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺁﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈن اﻟﻤﺆﻟﻒ ﻳﺼﺪر اﻟﻜﺘﺎب ﺑﻌﻨﻮان ﻣﺤﺪد‬ ‫وﻳﺼﺪرﻩ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻓﺘﺮة ﺑﻌﻨﻮان ﺁﺧﺮ آﻄﺒﻌﺔ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫وﻻ ﺗﺸﻤﻞ اﻟﻤﺎدة ‪ 5.5‬هﺬﻩ اﻟﻨﻘﻄﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻦ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺒﺎدئ ﺑﺎرﻳﺲ‪ .‬وﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﻘﺪ اﻗﺘﺮح ﻓﺮﻳﻖ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ إﺿﺎﻓﺔ هﺬﻩ‬ ‫اﻟﻨﻘﻄﺔ وذﻟﻚ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺎدة ‪ ،5.5.1‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺗﻜﻮن آﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ‪:‬‬

‫ﻳﺠﺐ أن ﻳﻜﻮن اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻦ هﻮ اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻷﺻﻠﻲ أو اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻷآﺜﺮ ورودا ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻤﻈﻬﺮ اﻟﻤﺎدي ﻟﻠﻮﻋﺎء‪ ،‬أو‬ ‫ﻋﻨﻮان اﻟﻨﺴﺨﺔ اﻷوﻟﻰ ﻟﻨﻔﺲ اﻟﻮﻋﺎء إذا ﻇﻬﺮ ﺑﻌﻨﺎوﻳﻦ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻄﺒﻌﺎت اﻟﻼﺣﻘﺔ وﻟﻢ ﻳﻜﻦ أﺣﺪ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻌﻨﺎوﻳﻦ هﻮ اﻷآﺜﺮ ورودا‬ ‫ﻟﻨﻔﺲ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺑـ‪.‬‬

‫ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ وﺿﻮح اﻟﻤﺎدة ‪ 5.5.1‬وﺗﻔﺮﻳﻌﻬﺎ ‪ 5.5.1.1‬ﻓﻲ اﻟﻨﺴﺨﺔ اﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺒﺎدئ ﺑﺎرﻳﺲ‪ ،‬إﻻ أﻧﻬﻤﺎ ﻟﻴﺴﺎ‬ ‫ﺑﻨﻔﺲ درﺟﺔ اﻟﻮﺿﻮح ﻓﻲ اﻟﻨﺴﺨﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ وﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﻘﺪ اﻗﺘﺮح ﻓﺮﻳﻖ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ دﻣﺞ اﻟﻔﻘﺮﺗﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﻓﻘﺮة واﺣﺪة‪،‬‬ ‫وﻣﻦ ﺛﻢ إﻋﺎدة ﺻﻴﺎﻏﺘﻬﺎ آﺎﻵﺗﻲ‪:‬‬

‫‪ 5.5‬أﺷﻜﺎل اﻟﻌﻨﺎوﻳﻦ اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻨﺔ‬ ‫ﻗﺪ ﻳﻜﻮن اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻦ ﻋﻨﻮان ﻗﺎﺋﻢ ﺑﺬاﺗﻪ‪ ،‬أو أن ﻳﻜﻮن ﻣﺮآﺐ ﻣﻦ اﺳﻢ ﻣﻘﺘﺮﻧﺎ ﺑﻌﻨﻮان أو ﻋﻨﻮان ﻣﺤﺪد ﺑﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻔﻴﺔ أﺧﺮى‬ ‫ﻣﺜﻞ اﺳﻢ هﻴﺌﺔ أو ﻣﻜﺎن أو ﻟﻐﺔ أو ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ ‪ ...‬إﻟﻰ ﺁﺧﺮﻩ‪.‬‬

‫‪179‬‬

‫‪ 5.5.1‬ﻳﺠﺐ أن ﻳﻜﻮن اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻦ هﻮ اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻷﺻﻠﻲ أو اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻷآﺜﺮ ورودا ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻤﻈﻬﺮ اﻟﻤﺎدي ﻟﻠﻮﻋﺎء‪ ،‬أو ﻋﻨﻮان‬ ‫اﻟﻨﺴﺨﺔ اﻷوﻟﻰ ﻟﻨﻔﺲ اﻟﻮﻋﺎء إذا ﻇﻬﺮ ﺑﻌﻨﺎوﻳﻦ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻄﺒﻌﺎت اﻟﻼﺣﻘﺔ إﻻ إذا آﺎن هﻨﺎك اﺳﺘﺨﺪام ﺷﺎﺋﻊ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﻐﺔ واﻟﻨﺺ‬ ‫اﻟﺨﺎﺻﻴﻦ ﺑﻔﻬﺮس اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻨﺎ ﺗﻜﻮن اﻷوﻟﻮﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻔﻬﺮس وﻧﺼﻪ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .II‬ﺗﻮﺻﻴﺎت ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﻤﺴﻮدة ﻣﺒﺎدئ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ )اﻟﺘﺄﺷﻴﺮة اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﺎء(‪:‬‬ ‫أـ‪.‬‬

‫رﻓﺾ ﻓﺮﻳﻖ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﻻﻗﺘﺮاح اﻟﺬي ﻗﺪم ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺑﺸﺄن ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﻣﻜﺎن اﻟﺘﺄﺷﻴﺮة اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﺎء ﺣﻴﺚ إن ﻣﻜﺎن‬ ‫اﻟﺘﺄﺷﻴﺮة اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﺎء واﺿﺢ ﺟﺪا ﻓﻲ ﻣﻜﺎﻧﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪ‪ .‬وﻻ ﻳﺴﺒﺐ أي ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﻟﻪ‪.‬‬

‫ﺑـ‪.‬‬ ‫‪.III‬‬

‫وآﺬﻟﻚ اﻗﺘﺮح اﻟﻔﺮﻳﻖ ﺑﺠﻌﻞ اﻟﺘﺄﺷﻴﺮة اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﺎء ﺑﻴﺎن إﺟﺒﺎري وﻟﻴﺲ اﺧﺘﻴﺎري آﻤﺎ هﻮ اﻵن‪.‬‬

‫اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت‪:‬‬

‫اهﺘﻢ ﻓﺮﻳﻖ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺑﺘﺮﺟﻤﺔ ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت‪ ،‬وآﺎن ﻣﻨﻬﺎ‪:‬‬

‫ﻧﻘﺎط اﻟﻮﺻﻮل‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺴﺌﻮل اﻟﻔﻜﺮي‬ ‫اﻟﻮﺣﺪة‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻈﻬﺮ اﻟﻤﺎدي ﻟﻠﻮﻋﺎء‬ ‫ﺷﻜﻞ اﻟﻮﻋﺎء‬ ‫اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻟﻤﻘﻨﻦ‬ ‫اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‬

‫‪Access point‬‬ ‫‪Creator‬‬ ‫‪Item‬‬ ‫‪Manifestation‬‬ ‫‪Physical format‬‬ ‫‪Uniform title‬‬ ‫‪Work‬‬

‫‪180‬‬

WORKING GROUP 5 – MULTIVOLUME/MULTIPART STRUCTURES Abderrahim AMEUR, Mohammed VI Library at Al Akhawayn University in Ifrane, Morocco (GROUP LEADER) Mohamed Sherif Abdel Raouf, Library of Congress, Cairo Office (RECORDER)

Participants Egypt Siham Shams Aldein Mohamed Hamed Moawad Ola Omar Libya Saida Belal Lebanon Laila Elian Mona Nsouli Saudi Arabia Saleh Abdulah Al-Omari

Working Group Goal Optimize bibliographic sharing and fulfill the principle of identifying all works.

Working Group Issues The use of contents notes, author/title added entries, and analytic records in current codes to identify individual works/expressions contained in a manifestation – how do they differ and why? What solutions for dealing with whole/part situations are needed to accomplish various user tasks?

Summary of Discussions and Recommendations After defining the main concepts of the topic, three main points were discussed: 4.1. Discussion of the Statement of Principles The draft of the Cataloging Principles was discussed and approved by all the group members. The Group members suggested that the cataloging rules should not set any limit concerning the number of additional creators beyond the first (Section 7.1.3). 4.2. Recommendations regarding the Glossary

181

The Group members suggested new Arabic equivalents for some terms of the glossary. They have also expressed a need of more clarification for the term „Manifestation” in the English version of the Glossary. 4.3. Recommendations regarding the topic of discussion One main recommendation was formulated by the group members regarding the multivolume/multipart structures: All cataloging codes and their updates should include specifications on when to create analytical records in the case of multipart works with a collective title and different titles. 4.4. General Recommendations Two general recommendations were formulated by the group members: • Necessity of standardizing bibliographic control practices among Publishers from the Arabic speaking countries in close coordination with National Libraries; • Necessity of implementing the cataloging principles by the Integrated Library Systems Vendors.

182

‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﻟﺨﺎﻣﺴﺔ‪-‬ﺑﻨﻰ ﻣﺘﻌﺪد اﻟﻤﺠﻠﺪات‪/‬ﻣﺘﻌﺪد اﻷﺟﺰاء‬ ‫ﻗﺎﺋﺪ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ‪ :‬ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ ﻋﺎﻣﺮ )رﺋﻴﺴﺎ ‪ -‬اﻟﻤﻐﺮب(‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺴﺠﻞ‪ :‬ﺷﺮﻳﻒ ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﺮؤوف ﻣﺤﻤﺪ )ﻣﺼﺮ(‬ ‫‪ .1‬أﻋﻀﺎء ورﺷﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﻮن‪ :‬ﺳﻬﺎم ﺷﻤﺲ اﻟﺪﻳﻦ )ﻣﺼﺮ( ‪ -‬ﺳﻌﻴﺪة ﺑﻼل )ﻟﻴﺒﻴﺎ( – ﻟﻴﻠﻰ إﻟﻴﺎن )ﻟﺒﻨﺎن( – ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺣﺎﻣﺪ ﻣﻌﻮض )ﻣﺼﺮ( – ﻣﻨﻰ‬ ‫ﻧﺼﻮﻟﻲ )ﻟﺒﻨﺎن( – ﻋﻼ ﻋﻤﺮ )ﻣﺼﺮ( – ﺻﻼح ﻋﺒﺪ اﷲ اﻟﻌﻤﺮي )اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﻳﺔ(‬ ‫‪.2‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬

‫اﻟﻬﺪف‪ :‬ﺗﺤﺴﻴﻦ ﻣﺴﺘﻮى اﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﺔ اﻟﺒﻴﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ وﺗﻐﻄﻴﺔ اﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺘﻌﺮﻳﻒ اﻷﻋﻤﺎل‬ ‫ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎت اﻟﻤﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ‪ :‬إن اﺳﺘﺨﺪام آﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺒﺼﺮات اﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮى‪ ,‬اﻟﻤﺪاﺧﻞ اﻹﺿﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺆﻟﻒ ‪ /‬اﻟﻌﻨﻮان‪ ,‬ﻋﻼوة ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼت اﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻠﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻷآﻮاد اﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ أﺟﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ اﻷﻋﻤﺎل اﻟﻔﺮدﻳﺔ ‪ /‬اﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮات اﻟﻤﻮﺟﻮدة ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺮﺗﻴﺐ – آﻴﻒ‬ ‫وﻟﻤﺎذا ﺗﺨﺘﻠﻒ؟ ﻣﺎ هﻲ اﻟﺤﻠﻮل اﻟﻤﻄﻠﻮﺑﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻊ اﻟﻤﻮاﻗﻒ اﻟﻜﻠﻴﺔ ‪ /‬اﻟﺠﺰﺋﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ أﺟﻞ إﻧﺠﺎز ﻣﻬﺎم اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪ اﻟﻤﺘﻨﻮﻋﺔ‬

‫‪ .4‬ﻣﻠﺨﺺ اﻟﻤﻨﺎﻗﺸﺎت واﻟﺘﻮﺻﻴﺎت‬ ‫ﺑﻌﺪ اﻹﻧﺘﻬﺎء ﻣﻦ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ اﻟﻬﺪف ﻣﻦ ورﺷﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ وآﺬﻟﻚ اﻟﺘﻌﺮض ﻟﻠﻤﻔﺎهﻴﻢ اﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮع ورﺷﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ وﺑﻌﺪ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﻨﺎﻗﺸﺎت اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻤﺖ داﺧﻞ ورﺷﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ اﻟﻘﻮل أن هﻨﺎك ﺛﻼث ﻧﻘﺎط أﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺗﻢ ﺣﻮﻟﻬﺎ اﻟﻨﻘﺎش وﻃﺮﺣﺖ ﺑﺸﺄﻧﻬﺎ‬ ‫ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﻤﻘﺘﺮﺣﺎت واﻟﺘﻮﺻﻴﺎت ‪:‬‬ ‫‪ 4/1‬ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ ﺑﻴﺎن ﻣﺒﺎديء ﺑﺎرﻳﺲ‬ ‫ﺗﻢ ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ ﻣﺴﻮدة ﺑﻴﺎن ﻣﺒﺎديء ﺑﺎرﻳﺲ وﻗﺪ ﺣﻈﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻮاﻓﻘﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ أﻋﻀﺎء اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ‬ ‫ﻣﺠﺎل ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ اﻟﻨﺺ ‪ /‬وﻇﺎﺋﻒ اﻟﻔﻬﺮس ‪ /‬ﺗﺮآﻴﺐ اﻟﻔﻬﺮس ‪ /‬ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﺘﻮﺻﻴﻒ اﻟﺒﻴﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻲ‬ ‫• ﻣﻠﺤﻮﻇﺔ‪ :‬هﻨﺎك اﻗﺘﺮاح ﻣﻦ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ أﻋﻀﺎء اﻟﻮرﺷﺔ ﺣﻮل اﻟﻨﻘﻄﺔ ‪ 7.1.3‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺗﻘﺘﺮح اﻟﻮرﺷﺔ ﻋﺪم اﻟﺘﻘﻴﺪ‬ ‫ﺑﻌﺪد ﻣﺤﺪد ﻣﻦ أﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻴﻦ ﺑﺨﻼف اﻹﺳﻢ اﻷول‬ ‫‪ 4/2‬ﻗﺎﻣﻮس اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت‬ ‫• هﻨﺎك اﻗﺘﺮاح ﺑﺸﺄن إﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﻤﺮادﻓﺎت اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻟﺒﻌﺾ اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت اﻷﺟﻨﺒﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫اﻟﺘﺨﺼﺺ‬ ‫• اﻟﺘﺒﺲ اﻷﻣﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ أﻋﻀﺎء ورﺷﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺑﺨﺼﻮص ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ آﻠﻤﺔ )اﻟﻤﻈﻬﺮ ‪ (Manifestation‬وﻟﻢ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ‬ ‫اﻟﺘﻮﺻﻞ إﻟﻲ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ دﻗﻴﻖ ﻟﻠﻤﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﻟﺬا ﺗﻮﺻﻲ اﻟﻮرﺷﺔ ﺑﺈﻟﻘﺎء ﻣﺰﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺘﻮﺿﻴﺢ واﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﻟﻬﺬا‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ أوﻻ ﺛﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‬ ‫‪ 4/3‬اﻟﺘﻮﺻﻴﺎت ﺑﺸﺄن ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎت اﻟﻤﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ‬ ‫هﻨﺎك ﺗﻮﺻﻴﺔ أﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻗﺪ ﻃﺮﺣﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ أﻋﻀﺎء اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺑﺨﺼﻮص اﻟﺒﻨﻲ ﻣﺘﻌﺪد اﻷﺟﺰاء ‪ /‬اﻟﻤﺠﻠﺪات‬ ‫وهﻲ‪:‬‬ ‫•‬

‫ﻣﺘﻰ ﻳﺘﻢ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ ﺑﻴﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻴﺔ ﻣﻨﻔﺮدة ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﺠﻠﺪ داﺧﻞ اﻟﻮﻋﺎء ﻣﺘﻌﺪد اﻷﺟﺰاء أو اﻟﻤﺠﻠﺪات ﺑﺨﻼف‬ ‫ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻠﺔ اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻟﺠﺎﻣﻊ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 4/4‬ﺗﻮﺻﻴﺎت ﻋﺎﻣﺔ‬ ‫هﻨﺎك ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﻤﻘﺘﺮﺣﺎت ﻣﻦ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ أﻋﻀﺎء ورﺷﺔ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﻟﺨﺎﻣﺴﺔ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺗﻠﺨﻴﺼﻬﺎ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﻠﻲ‪:‬‬ ‫•‬ ‫•‬

‫‪183‬‬

‫اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻣﻊ اﻹﺗﺤﺎد اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ ﻟﺠﻤﻌﻴﺎت اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺎت )اﻹﻓﻼ( وآﺬﻟﻚ ﻣﻊ اﻟﻤﺆﺳﺴﺎت اﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﻌﻨﻴﺔ ﻟﺘﺤﻔﻴﺰ‬ ‫اﻟﻨﺎﺷﺮﻳﻦ اﻟﻌﺮب ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺘﻌﺎون ﻣﻊ اﻟﺠﻬﺎت اﻟﻤﺴﺌﻮﻟﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺠﺘﻤﻊ اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺎت واﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت داﺧﻞ آﻞ دوﻟﺔ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺎﻋﺪة ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ اﻟﻀﺒﻂ اﻟﺒﻴﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻲ‬ ‫اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻣﻊ ﻣﻮردي اﻟﻨﻈﻢ اﻵﻟﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺎت ﻋﻠﻰ اﻹﻟﺘﺰام ﺑﺘﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﻣﺎ اﺗﻔﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺒﺎديء‬ ‫وﻗﻮاﻋﺪ وﺗﻀﻤﻴﻦ ذﻟﻚ ﺿﻤﻦ اﻹﺻﺪارات اﻟﺤﺪﻳﺜﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻠﻚ اﻟﻨﻈﻢ‪.‬‬

APPENDICES ‫اﻟﻤﻼﺣﻖ‬

3rd IFLA Meeting of Experts on an International Cataloguing Code December 12-14, Cairo, Egypt AGENDA December 12, 2005 Day 1 8:30–9:00

Registration

9:00–9:30

Call to order – Moderator, Ayman El Masry (Library of Congress, Cairo Welcome and introductions – Dr. Sherif K. Shaheen (Dar al-Kutub al-Misriyya, Egypt), Dr. Barbara Tillett (IFLA Division IV: Bibliographic Control), Arthur Smith (OCLC, Inc.)

9:30–10:00

Paris Principles – Barbara Tillett (Library of Congress (USA)/IFLA)

10:00–10:30

ISBD – Mauro Guerrini (Università di Firenze, Italy)

10:30–10:45

Break

10:45–11:45

FRBR terminology and concepts – Elena Escolano (Biblioteca Nacional de España, Spain)

11:45–12:30

Virtual International Authority File – Barbara Tillett (IFLA)

12:30–1:30

Presentation, overview, and initial discussion of the draft Statement as approved in Frankfurt and updated in Buenos Aires – Barbara Tillett (IFLA)

1:30–2:30

Lunch

2:30–4:00

Overview of the Working Goup tasks and topic

4:00–4:15

Break

4:15–5:00

Special reports on Middle East Cataloguing Practices and logistics for Day 2

7:00–9:00

Conference dinner –courtesy of OCLC, Inc.

187

December 13, 2005 Day 2 9:00–9:15

Plenary session – Announcements and meeting room assignments Moderator, Ansam Baranek (Library of Congress Office, Cairo)

9:15–1:00

Working Groups (focus on topics and prepare recommendations from the Middle East perspective)

10:30–10:45

Break

1:00–2:00

Lunch

2:00–2:15

Group Photo

2:15–3:45

Call to order – Ansam Baranek (Library of Congress Office, Cairo), Reports from Working Groups (15 minutes each)

3:45–4:00

Compile recommendations and discuss Statement of Principles change recommendations

4:00–4:15

Break

4:15–4:30

Continue discussion and identify next steps

4:30–5:00

Closing Ceremony

5:30

Evening at the Great pyramids

December 14, 2005 Day 3 9:00 am– 6:00 pm Day trip (bus and lunch provided) to Bibliotheca Alexandrina

188

‫اﻹﺟﺘﻤﺎع اﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﻹﻓﻼ ﻟﻠﺨﺒﺮاء ﻓﻲ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ‪ 14–12 ،‬دﻳﺴﻴﻤﺒﺮ ‪ ،2005‬اﻟﻘﺎهﺮة‪ ،‬ﻣﺼﺮ‬

‫اﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ‬ ‫‪12‬دﻳﺴﻤﺒﺮ‪2005،‬‬ ‫اﻟﻴﻮم اﻷول‬

‫* ‪9:00–8:30‬‬

‫اﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻞ‬

‫* ‪9.30–9.00‬‬

‫اﻟﺪﻋﻮة ﻟﻼﺟﺘﻤﺎع‪ ،‬أﻳﻤﻦ اﻟﻤﺼﺮي )ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ اﻟﻜﻮﻧﺠﺮس( آﻠﻤﺔ اﻟﺘﺮﺣﻴﺐ واﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﻢ‬ ‫– د ‪.‬ﺑﺎرﺑﺎرا ب ‪.‬ﺗﻴﻠﻴﺖ ) اﻓﻼ ‪ :‬ﻗﺴﻢ ‪ :IV‬اﻟﻘﺴﻢ اﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﺟﺮاﻓﻲ( د‪ .‬ﺷﺮﻳﻒ ﺷﺎهﻴﻦ )دار‬ ‫اﻟﻜﺘﺐ اﻟﻤﺼﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺼﺮ(‪ ،‬ﺁرﺛﺮ ﺳﻤﻴﺚ )‪ OCLC, Inc.‬اﻟﺸﺮق اﻷوﺳﻂ‪ ،‬اﻟﻬﻨﺪ(‬

‫* ‪10.00–9.30‬‬

‫ﻣﺒﺎدئ ﺑﺎرﻳﺲ – ﺑﺎرﺑﺎرا ﺗﻴﻠﻴﺖ )ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ اﻟﻜﻮﻧﺠﺮس‪ ،‬اﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎت اﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪة اﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ ‪/‬اﻓﻼ(‬

‫* ‪10.45–10.30‬‬

‫‪ – ISBD‬ﻣﺎورو ﺟﻮﻳﺮﻳﻨﻲ )ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻓﻴﺮﻧﻴﺰ‪ ،‬اﻳﻄﺎﻟﻴﺎ(‬

‫* ‪10:45–10.00‬‬

‫اﺳﺘﺮاﺣﺔ‬

‫* ‪11.45–10.45‬‬

‫‪ FRBR‬اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺢ واﻟﻤﻔﻬﻮم – اﻟﻴﻨﺎ اﺳﻜﻮﻻﻧﻮ )اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺔ اﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ اﻻﺳﺒﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬اﺳﺒﺎﻧﻴﺎ(‬

‫* ‪12.30–11.45‬‬

‫اﻟﻤﻠﻒ اﻻﺳﺘﻨﺎدي اﻻﻓﺘﺮاﺿﻲ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ – ﺑﺎرﺑﺎرا ﺗﻴﻠﻴﺖ )ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ اﻟﻜﻮﻧﺠﺮس‪/‬اﻓﻼ(‬

‫* ‪1.30–12.30‬‬

‫ﻋﺮض وﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺔ وﻣﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ ﻣﺒﺪﺋﻴﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺴﻮدة اﻟﺒﻴﺎن آﻤﺎ هﻮ ﻣﺼﺪق ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﻓﺮاﻧﻜﻔﻮرت وﺗﺤﺪﻳﺜﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻮﻧﺲ اﻳﺮﻳﺲ – ﺑﺎرﺑﺎرا ﺗﻴﻠﻴﺖ )ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ اﻟﻜﻮﻧﺠﺮس‪/‬اﻓﻼ(‬

‫* ‪2:30–1.30‬‬

‫اﻟﻐﺬاء‬

‫* ‪4.00–2.30‬‬

‫ﻋﺮض ﻣﻬﺎم وﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎت ورش اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‬

‫* ‪4:15–4:00‬‬

‫اﺳﺘﺮاﺣﺔ‬

‫* ‪5:00–4:15‬‬

‫ﺗﻘﺎرﻳﺮ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻘﺎت اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺸﺮق اﻷوﺳﻂ و اﻋﻼن ﻋﻦ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎت اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﻮرش اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻟﻠﻴﻮم اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﺆﺗﻤﺮ‬

‫* ‪9:00–7:00‬‬

‫‪189‬‬

‫ﻋﺸﺎء اﻟﻤﺆﺗﻤﺮ – ﺑﺪﻋﻮة ﻣﻦ ‪OCLC, Inc.‬‬

‫‪13‬دﻳﺴﻤﺒﺮ‪2005،‬‬ ‫اﻟﻴﻮم اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ‬

‫* ‪9:15–9:00‬‬

‫اﻻﻋﻼن ﻋﻦ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎت اﻟﻌﻤﻞ وأﻣﺎآﻦ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع‪ ،‬أﻧﺴﺎم ﺑﺮاﻧﻖ )ﻣﻜﺘﺐ ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻜﻮﻧﺠﺮس‪ ،‬اﻟﻘﺎهﺮة(‬

‫* ‪1:00–9:15‬‬

‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎت ﻋﻤﻞ )ﺗﺮآﻴﺰ ﻋﻠﻲ اﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎت اﻟﺨﻤﺴﺔ و ﺗﺤﻀﻴﺮ اﻟﺘﻮﺻﻴﺎت اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮق‬ ‫اﻷوﺳﻂ(‬

‫* ‪10:45–10:30‬‬

‫اﺳﺘﺮاﺣﺔ‬

‫* ‪2:00–1:00‬‬

‫اﻟﻐﺬاء‬

‫* ‪2:15–2:00‬‬

‫اﻟﺘﺼﻮﻳﺮ اﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮاﻓﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎت‬

‫* ‪3:30–2:15‬‬

‫اﻻﻋﻼن ﻋﻦ اﺳﺘﺌﻨﺎف اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع‪ ،‬أﻧﺴﺎم ﺑﺮاﻧﻖ( ﻣﻜﺘﺐ ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ اﻟﻜﻮﻧﺠﺮس‪ ،‬اﻟﻘﺎهﺮة(‪،‬‬ ‫ﺗﻘﺎرﻳﺮ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎت اﻟﻌﻤﻞ )‪ 15‬دﻗﻴﻘﺔ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ(‬

‫* ‪4:00–3:30‬‬

‫ﺗﺠﻤﻴﻊ اﻟﺘﻮﺻﻴﺎت و ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ ﺗﻮﺻﻴﺎت ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﺑﻴﺎن اﻟﻤﺒﺎدئ‬

‫* ‪4:15–4:00‬‬

‫اﺳﺘﺮاﺣﺔ‬

‫* ‪4:30–4:15‬‬

‫ﻣﺘﺎﺑﻌﺔ اﻟﻤﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ وﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ اﻟﺨﻄﻮات اﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ‬

‫* ‪5:00–4:30‬‬

‫اﻏﻼق اﻟﻤﺆﺗﻤﺮ واﻟﺘﻮدﻳﻊ‬

‫* ‪–5:30‬‬

‫ﻗﻀﺎء اﻷﻣﺴﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻻهﺮاﻣﺎت اﻟﻌﻈﻴﻤﺔ‬

‫‪14‬دﻳﺴﻤﺒﺮ‪2005،‬‬ ‫اﻟﻴﻮم اﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‬ ‫رﺣﻠﺔ ﻟﻴﻮم واﺣﺪ اﻟﻲ ﻣﺪﻳﻨﺔ اﻻﺳﻜﻨﺪرﻳﺔ ﻟﺰﻳﺎرة ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ اﻷﺳﻜﻨﺪرﻳﺔ )ﺷﺎﻣﻠﺔ اﻟﺤﺎﻓﻠﺔ واﻟﻐﺬاء(‬

‫‪190‬‬

WEB site = ‫اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺒﻜﺔ اﻹﻧﺘﺮﻧﺖ‬ Before the 3nd IFLA Meeting of Experts on an International Cataloguing Code (IME ICC3) took place a Web site was set up by the staff at the Library of Congress. The site was populated with information in English and Arabic and offers background documentation, presentation documents and follow-up reports, as well as the marked-up version of the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles drafted in Frankfurt and Buenos Aires as amended by the IME ICC3. This site is expected to be maintain throughout the IME ICC process and will provide links to the future meeting web sites as well as to the previous meeting. The URL is: http://www.loc.gov/loc/ifla/imeicc ‫ ﺗﻢ إﻧﺸﺎء ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﻟﻼﺟﺘﻤﺎع ﻋﻠﻰ اﻻﻧﺘﺮﻧﺖ ﺑﻮاﺳﻄﺔ ﻣﺘﺨﺼﺼﻴﻦ‬،‫ﻗﺒﻞ اﻧﻌﻘﺎد اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع اﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﻟﻠﺨﺒﺮاء ﻓﻲ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ‬ ‫ وﻋﺮوض‬،‫ آﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﺪم ﺧﻠﻔﻴﺎت ﻋﻠﻤﻴﺔ‬،‫ هﺬا اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻧﻪ إﻋﻄﺎء ﻣﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺘﻴﻦ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ واﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‬.‫ﺑﻤﻜﺘﺒﺔ اﻟﻜﻮﻧﺠﺮس‬ ‫ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ إﻟﻰ ﻧﺴﺨﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺴﻮدة إﻋﻼن اﻟﻤﺒﺎدئ ﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ‬.‫أﺑﺤﺎث وﺗﻘﺎرﻳﺮ ﺣﻮل ﻣﺎ ﺳﻴﺘﻢ ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺸﺘﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎت ﺧﻼل اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع‬ .‫اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ اﻟﺼﺎدرة ﻓﻲ اﺟﺘﻤﺎع ﻓﺮاﻧﻜﻔﻮرت واﻟﺬي روﺟﻊ ﻓﻲ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ﻹﻓﻼ ﻟﻠﺨﺒﺮاء ﻓﻲ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ‬ ‫هﺬا اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﻔﺘﺮض أن ﻳﺤﺘﻮي ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﺎت اﻹﻓﻼ ﻟﻠﺨﺒﺮاء ﻓﻲ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ واﻟﺤﺎﻟﻲ‬ http://www.loc.gov/loc/ifla/imeicc :‫ وﻋﻨﻮان اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ هﻮ‬.‫واﻟﻘﺎدم أﻳﻀﺎ‬

191

IMEICC3 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS ‫=أﻋﻀﺎء اﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ اﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻟﻺﺟﺘﻤﺎع اﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﻹﻓﻼ ﻟﻠﺨﺒﺮاء ﻓﻲ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ اﻟﺪوﻟﻴﺔ‬ Dr. Barbara Tillett, (Chair) Chief, Cataloging Policy and Support Office, Library of Congress Washington, DC USA 205404305 Tel.: +1 (202) 707-4714 Fax: +1 (202) 707-6629 Email: [email protected]

Ansam Baranek Library of Congress Office, Cairo, U.S. Embassy 8 Kamal El Din Salah St. Garden City, Cairo, Egypt Email: [email protected]

Ana Lupe Cristán Cooperative Cataloging Specialist Cataloging Policy and Support Office, Library of Congress Washington, DC USA205404304 Tel.: +1 (202) 707-7921 Fax: +1 (202) 707-6629 Email: [email protected]

Elena Escolano Servicio de Catalogación Departamento Control Bibliográfico Biblioteca Nacional de España Paseo de Recoletos, 202228071 Madrid, España Tel.: +34 915807735 Fax: +34 915168016 Email: [email protected]

James Gentner Field Director Library of Congress Office, Cairo Unit 64900, Box 26 APO AE 09839-4900 Cairo, Egypt Tel: +(20 2) 797-3564 Fax: +(20 2) 796-0233 Email: [email protected]

Mauro Guerrini Università di Firenze Dipartimento di Studi sul Medioevo e Rinascimento Biblioteconomia Piazza Brunelleschi, 4 Firenze 1-50121 Italia Tel.: +0571 72057 Fax: +0571 79665 Email: [email protected]

William J. Kopycki Middle East Studies Librarian Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center University of Pennsylvania 3420 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA USA 191046206 Tel: 215.898.2196 fax: 215.898.0559 Email: [email protected]

Jaesun Lee Acquisitions and Technical Processing Division, National Library of Korea San 60-1, Banpo-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul 137-702, Republic of Korea Tel: +822-590-0647 Fax: +822-590-0620 Email: [email protected]

Ayman el-Masry Library of Congress Office, Cairo, U.S. Embassy 8 Kamal El DIn Salah St. Garden City, Cairo, Egypt Email: [email protected]

Mahmoud Rashad Library of Congress Office, Cairo, U.S. Embassy 8 Kamal El DIn Salah St. Garden City, Cairo, Egypt Email: [email protected]

192

Mona Abdel Kader Library of Congress Office, Cairo, U.S. Embassy 8 Kamal El DIn Salah St. Garden City, Cairo, Egypt Email: [email protected]

Sherief Ra’ouf Library of Congress Office, Cairo, U.S. Embassy 8 Kamal El DIn Salah St. Garden City, Cairo, Egypt Email: [email protected]

Khaled Mohammed Reyad Library of Congress Office, Cairo, U.S. Embassy 8 Kamal El DIn Salah St. Garden City, Cairo, Egypt Email: [email protected]

Wessam Samir Library of Congress Office, Cairo, U.S. Embassy 8 Kamal El DIn Salah St. Garden City, Cairo, Egypt Email: [email protected]

Arthur Smith Director, Middle East / India OCLC, Inc. 6565 Frantz Road Dublin, OHIO USA 43017-3395 Tel: 828 277-7395 or 614 7646006 Fax: 614 718 7272 Email: [email protected]

Alaa el-Talmas Systems Librarian Zayed University P.O. Box 19282 Dubai, UAE Tel: 971-4208-2162 Fax: 971-42640485 E-mail: [email protected]

Sameh Shalaby Managing Director APROMAC 9, Adly Street. Down Town P.O. Box 2761 Cairo, Egypt Tel: (202)3902095 or 3960914, 3960915 Fax: (202)3960913 Email: [email protected]

193

PARTICIPANTS = ‫اﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﻮن‬ Country

Participant

Institution

Bahrain

Mahamed Ahmed al-Jarhi Library & Information Services, University of Bahrain

Egypt

Nedal Fayez al-Shourbagy American University in Cairo

Jordan

194

Shadia el-Hanafy

American University in Cairo

Mohamed Hamed Moawad

American University in Cairo

Ali K. Shaker

Al-Minia University

Kalid Mohammed Kamal El-Desouki

Assiut University Library

Ibrahim Sabry

Arab League Library

Manal Amin

Bibliotheca Alexandrina

Iman Khairy

Bibliotheca Alexandrina

Ola Omar

Bibliotheca Alexandrina

Nasr Mansour Nasr

Cairo University

Siham Shams Aldein

Cairo University

Iman Abdel Kader Mohamed

Cairo University

Omar Fathi

Cairo University

Mohamed Albiltagy

Cairo University

Ibrahim Jomaa

Cairo University

Walid Ghali Nasr

Central Library of Islamic Manuscripts

Adalat Ibrahim Ahmed

Egyptian National Library

Sharif Shaheen

Egyptian National Library

Amany Gamal

Menoufiya University

Issa Lallo

Jordanian University of Science and Technology

Ghadeer W. Moraly

National Library of Jordan

Kuwait

Emad Saleh al-Turkait

Public Authority for Applied Education and Training

Lebanon

Ghada Abu Shakra

Bibliothèque nationale du Liban

Mona Nsouli

Institute for Palestine Studies

Taleb Ahmed

Lebanese American University

Bughdana Hajjar

Lebanese American University

Hala Bizri

Lebanese National Library Rehabilitation Project

Lopitta Kattan Fares

Notre Dame University-Louaizé

Laila Elian

Université Saint-Joseph, Beirut

Saida S. Belal

National Library of Libya

Ali Mohamed Khalief

National Library of Libya

Mahmoud M. Mahfoud

National Library of Libya

Abderrahim Ameur

Al Akhawayn University

Abdelmajid Bensaoud

Bibliothèque nationale du Royaume du Maroc

Abderrahamane Rachik

Fondation du roi Abdul Aziz Al Saoud

Oman

Khalfam Zahran Al-Hijji

Sultan Qaboos University

Palestine

Najla Sharabati

Birziet University, Yusuf Ahmed Alghamin Library

Suhaila Ibrahim Abu Ghdeib-Shalash

Birziet University, Yusuf Ahmed Alghamin Library

Qatar

Alice Burnett

Weill Cornell Medical Library

Saudi Arabia

Saleh M. al-Musned

King Abdulaziz Public Library

Mohammad J. al-Maliki

King Abdulaziz Public Library

Mahmoud Abdulkader Mesroua

King Abdulaziz Public Library

Libya

Morocco

195

Tunisia

United Arab Emirates

196

Othman Mohammed al-Asmare

King Fahd National Library

Saleh Abdulah al-Omari

King Fahd National Library

Saeed Elanz

Projet BIRUNI

Khaled Habashi

Université de la Manouba

Jessim M. Jirjees

Center for Documentation and Research

Khaled Ahmed al-Sabbagh

Cultural Foundation, National Library

Ibrahim Muhammad al-Tenaiji

United Arab Emirates University

Younis al-Shawabakah

United Arab Emirates University

Maryam aa-Shamsi

United Arab Emirates University

Muneer Abu Baker

Zayed University

AUTHORS, EDITORS, CONTRIBUTORS, AND TRANSLATORS ‫ واﻟﻤﺘﺮﺟﻤﻴﻦ‬،‫ اﻟﻤﺴﺎهﻤﻴﻦ‬،‫ اﻟﻤﺤﺮرﻳﻦ‬،‫ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﺑﺄﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻴﻦ‬ This list is arranged alphabetically for persons who participated in this report as an author or editor or translator. Baranek, Ansam

[email protected]

Byrum, John D.

[email protected]

Cristán, Ana Lupe

[email protected]

El-Masry, Ayman

[email protected]

Escolano, Elena

[email protected]

Gad, Magda

[email protected]

Mauro, Guerrini

[email protected]

Hajjar, Bughdana

[email protected]

Khairy, Iman

[email protected]

Le Boeuf, Patrick

[email protected]

Reyad, Khaled Mohamed

[email protected]

Samir, Wessam

[email protected]

Shaker, Ali

[email protected]

Talmas, Alaa

[email protected]

Tillett, Barbara

[email protected]

Zayed, Ghada

[email protected]

197

ifla_series_29_prelims.qxp

28.07.2006

14:57

Seite 5

ifla_series_29_prelims.qxp

About IFLA

28.07.2006

14:57

Seite 5

www.ifla.org

IFLA (The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions) is the leading international body representing the interests of library and information services and their users. It is the global voice of the library and information profession. IFLA provides information specialists throughout the world with a forum for exchanging ideas and promoting international cooperation, research, and development in all fields of library activity and information service. IFLA is one of the means through which libraries, information centres, and information professionals worldwide can formulate their goals, exert their influence as a group, protect their interests, and find solutions to global problems. IFLA’s aims, objectives, and professional programme can only be fulfilled with the cooperation and active involvement of its members and affiliates. Currently, over 1,700 associations, institutions and individuals, from widely divergent cultural backgrounds, are working together to further the goals of the Federation and to promote librarianship on a global level. Through its formal membership, IFLA directly or indirectly represents some 500,000 library and information professionals worldwide. IFLA pursues its aims through a variety of channels, including the publication of a major journal, as well as guidelines, reports and monographs on a wide range of topics. IFLA organizes workshops and seminars around the world to enhance professional practice and increase awareness of the growing importance of libraries in the digital age. All this is done in collaboration with a number of other non-governmental organizations, funding bodies and international agencies such as UNESCO and WIPO. IFLANET, the Federation’s website, is a prime source of information about IFLA, its policies and activities: www.ifla.org Library and information professionals gather annually at the IFLA World Library and Information Congress, held in August each year in cities around the world. IFLA was founded in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1927 at an international conference of national library directors. IFLA was registered in the Netherlands in 1971. The Koninklijke Bibliotheek (Royal Library), the national library of the Netherlands, in The Hague, generously provides the facilities for our headquarters. Regional offices are located in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Dakar, Senegal; and Singapore.