Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 49:457–483, 2011

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0163-9374 print / 1544-4554 online
DOI: 10.1080/01639374.2011.603108

An Assessment of the Need to Provide

Non-Roman Subject Access to the Library
Online Catalog

MAGDA EL-SHERBINI and SHERAB CHEN

Library Tech Center, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA

This article reports the results of an investigation on user preferences

in subject searching for non-Roman script materials, and analyzes
problems users encountered in retrieving non-Roman script using
controlled subject headings in English. Key findings indicate that
end users were not completely dissatisfied with the current library
catalog; end users and librarians want a system that is more open
to multilingual subject headings; end users are not eager for adding
tagging feature to the library catalog; they also highlighted areas
of opportunity for libraries to make significant improvements to the
catalog.

KEYWORDS surveys, Library of Congress Subject Headings

(LCSH), keyword indexing, user tagging, library catalogs, online
public access catalogs (OPACs), subject access

INTRODUCTION

Many North American library catalogs support title, author, and keyword
searching in non-Roman scripts. However, when it comes to subject search-
ing, these systems provide access only to controlled English-language sub-
ject headings and thesauri, such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings
(LCSH). In much of the cataloging for items in languages not written in
Roman script, English-language subject access provides neither a sufficient
description of the content nor can it ensure the retrieval of the item.
When there is no English equivalent, an English subject headings sys-
tem provides transliteration (or Romanization) of the native scripts. However,

Received May 2011; revised June 2011; accepted July 2011.

Address correspondence to Magda El-Sherbini, Library Tech Center, Ohio State University,
Room 125A, 1165 Kinnear Road, Columbus, OH 43212, USA. E-mail: el-sherbini.1@osu.edu

457
458 M. El-Sherbini and S. Chen

the transliteration scheme may not be the same the user employs at time of
search. There are also concepts in non-Roman languages that are difficult
to find in English and in this case catalogers would select a controlled vo-
cabulary subject heading that is “close enough.” On the other hand, a user
who is searching for a book written in certain language about a certain sub-
ject should be able to conduct a subject search in that language if that is
preferred. The term “non-Roman/Latin script” used in this article refers to
writing systems represented in ideographs or in non-Roman alphabets, such
as Chinese characters or the Arabic script.
Although librarians in the West are paying more attention to providing
subject access to non-English language materials, especially those in non-
Roman scripts, there is very little research into either their efforts or the
preferences of end users for this kind of access. In October 2005, the Associ-
ation for Library Collections and Technical Services (ALCTS) formed the Task
Force on Non-English Access to “examine ALA’s past, present, and poten-
tial future roles in enabling access to library resources in all languages and
scripts and in addressing the needs of users of materials in all languages and
scripts through the development of library standards and practices.” The last
of the eleven recommendations proposed by the Task Force Report deals
with the need for non-Roman scripts in subject access.1
Inspired by the ALCTS Non-English Task Force recommendation, the
authors decided to investigate the issue of subject access for non-Roman
script materials. They conducted a survey to investigate user preferences
when conducting subject searches for non-Roman script materials in North
American library catalogs. This article reports the results, analyzes some
problems that respondents encountered when using controlled subject head-
ings in English for retrieving these materials, and discusses respondent
recommendations.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Providing subject access to non-Roman language materials in their origi-

nal scripts is becoming increasingly important, especially for those libraries
that collect materials in non-Roman scripts and those libraries that serve
large populations of speakers of languages that use non-Roman scripts. Non-
Roman script users can currently access resources using finding aids in the
original script instead of in translation or transliteration. In conducting a sur-
vey of library literature on this topic, the authors found numerous articles on
related topics, including Romanization, technical aspects of library systems,
problems in accessing non-Roman script materials, cataloging standards, and
so on. However, there is no research specifically addressing the options and
feasibility of providing non-Roman script subject access to U.S.-based library
catalogs. Progress has been made in developing multilingual subject access
 Assessing Non-Roman Subject Access to the Library Online Catalog 459

among subject heading schemes in European languages utilizing Internet-

based linking.
Several authors addressed the limited effectiveness of Romanization in
providing access to non-Roman script materials. In his article, Agenbroad
offered an extensive historical overview of Romanization in library catalogs.2
He identified institutional policy and cataloging standards, not technical fea-
sibility, as the major obstacles to implementing non-Roman script access
points. He provided two suggestions: expand the Machine Readable Cata-
loging (MARC) character repertoire and add rules to the Anglo-American
Cataloguing Rules, Second Edition (AACR2) to allow non-Roman script ac-
cess points. Aliprand also expressed observations, saying that Romanization
is inadequate for providing access to materials in non-Roman scripts.3 She
described Romanization as “information distortion.”4 Aliprand pointed to the
need for “locale-specific” access points, determined by the user’s preferred
language and written in the proper script. She also advised that authority
files present multiple script access points.
Researchers continued to identify alternatives to using non-Roman script
subject headings instead of Romanization. In Models for Multilingual Subject
Access in Library Online Catalogues, Davies described the two models used
by the International Labour Organization (ILO) to provide users with subject
access in languages of their choice.5 In the first model, subject terms were
translated on the fly when catalog records were accessed during search, dis-
play, or export. In the second model, descriptors were translated in a batch
process after being entered into the bibliographic record and the equivalent
descriptors in other languages were actually entered into the bibliographic
record. Each of these models has advantages and disadvantages in terms
of data storage, indexing, and translating. Park addressed name and subject
access across languages and cultures.6 She examined current mechanisms for
cross-lingual name and subject access and identified major factors that hinder
cross-lingual information access. For example, the author looked at convert-
ing concepts expressed in Korean into English LCSH subject headings. She
pointed out that mapping Korean names and subjects to their English coun-
terparts is very difficult due to different linguistic structures and sociocultural
norms. In the case of English and Korean, these structural differences are
considerable, unlike between English and other Western languages, because
English and Korean are unrelated languages. Moreover, “word segmentation
and transliteration schemes dealing with non-Roman scripts also play a part
in limiting access to cross-lingual and cross-cultural resources.”7
Wellisch’s effort is considered to be one of the most important articles
written at this time to address the difficulties readers of foreign language ma-
terials encounter in searching by subject for these materials.8 He conducted
a survey of four questions on how public libraries provide bibliographic ac-
cess to their foreign language collections. The author reported that the limi-
tations of personnel, money, time, and technical facilities under which public
460 M. El-Sherbini and S. Chen

libraries everywhere must operate can be tackled effectively by cooperative

efforts and a centralized service. Four methods were included in his findings
to provide access to non-Roman Scripts: “1) The Conventional Author-Title-
Subject Catalog augmented with Cross-References in Foreign Languages;
2) Separate Subject Catalog in a Foreign Language; 3) Classified Subject
Catalogs with Multilingual Indexes; and 4) A Combination Alphabetical and
Classified Subject Catalog.”9
The theme of providing subject access to multilingual materials runs
through several of the International Federation of Library Associations and
Institutions (IFLA), Council and General Conference meetings. In the 61st
IFLA General Conference Proceedings, August 20–25, 1995, Eilts traced the
history of cataloging non-Roman script materials prior to automation.10 Eilts
provided a historical background about the cataloging of non-Roman scripts
and how the bibliographic information was recorded in the original script,
including, in some cases, the native language subject access, and how this
practice evolved. He addressed the changes that the libraries of North Amer-
ica will face in the area of non-Roman script cataloging in the future.
The 65th IFLA Council and General Conference held at Bangkok, Thai-
land focused on the topic of the language barrier in mining resources from
the World Wide Web.11 The first speaker addressed the need for programs
that can accommodate retrieving multilingual materials from the Web. The
second speaker reported on a research project for developing a person-
alized knowledge organization and access mechanism called “knowledge
class” and its support of multilingual access. The third speaker described a
multilingual approach to subject access and how the major search engines
explored various ways of implementing hierarchical or classificatory struc-
tures to provide subject access to multilingual materials. Services such as
the multilingual-oriented services of major search engines and Web Sub-
ject Directories in a multilingual environment were explained. The speakers
concluded that the road for full cross-language searching on the Web is an
optimistic scenario and technical issues, as well as social and culture issues
need to be addressed. These issues include character encoding support, user
interface linguistic translation, and support of culture specific data formats.
Alder presented a case study on multilingual and multi-script subject ac-
cess in Israel at the 66th IFLA Council and General Conference that was held
in Jerusalem, Israel, August 13–18, 2000.12 The author addressed the prob-
lem of maintaining separate descriptive cataloging for each script (Hebrew,
Arabic, Latin, and sometimes Cyrillic). Proving subject access in such a
multilingual environment is, however, much more problematic and the ap-
proaches that were taken by each library were varied. For example, in 1977,
the University of Haifa created a thesaurus of Hebrew indexing terms to sup-
port its Index to Hebrew Periodicals. This thesaurus served as the basis for
a list of Hebrew subject headings for public libraries. The author indicated
that the university libraries seem comfortable using English terms, such as
 Assessing Non-Roman Subject Access to the Library Online Catalog 461

LCSH, for subject retrieval, but Israeli public libraries are dissatisfied with the
classified catalog.
Some authors criticized the use of Romanization tools for non-Roman
scripts and described these tools as not user friendly. They pointed out that
the Romanization system is often not known to users. Kim and Molavi ad-
dress the problems with Romanization in two different scripts. Kim analyzed
the cataloging rules for Korean materials focusing on the McCune-Reischauer
(MR) system, the Korean Romanization scheme currently used in the United
States.13 Although this system has been used for a long time in many Western
countries, and was officially adopted by the Library of Congress (LC) for use
in the cataloging of Korean language materials, it has drawbacks in searching
and retrieving materials in this language. The author conducted a survey and
confirmed that the MR system is not a user-centric tool. Molavi identified
the main issues in cataloging Persian language materials in North American
libraries, and she confirmed that these problems originated from:

• The implementation of the ALA-LC Romanization Tables for Persian;

• Problems that occur either because of misleading examples used in that
Table’s Rules for Application section, or a lack of functional knowledge of
Persian; and
• Problems that appear in the treatment of names generally and choice and
form of main entry specifically, due to the application of inappropriate
rules for Persian names.

Both Kim and Molavi suggested some improvements to the MR system and
the ALA-LC Romanization Table for Persian to overcome these limitations.
Creating a bilingual authority file in academic and research libraries was
the focus of research by Abdoulaye.14 Abdoulaye analyzed and described
the bilingual authority files of the main library of the International Islamic
University of Malaysia. His research is unique in that he investigated the
perceptions of catalogers and end users in relation to the bilingual authority
files. He interviewed three cataloging staff at the Department of Arabic and
Religious Resources and 25 end users. Most of the respondents felt that the
use of bilingual authority files was essential for success in searching. The end
users felt that more subject headings and bibliographic information should
be provided, while the catalogers believed that bilingualism has an effect
on bibliographic control. They also felt that AACR2 and LCSH should be
translated into the Arabic language.
As a result of the limitations of the LCSH and the weakness in the
treatment of Arabic subjects, librarians from Arab countries felt the need to
prepare their own subject headings lists based on the characteristics and
grammar of the Arabic language and the culture of the Arabic world.15 No-
table among them are the lists by Swaydan, El-Khazindar, and Khalifah and
‘A’idi.16 Because these lists were prepared by individual librarians, they do
462 M. El-Sherbini and S. Chen

not have the support of national or regional organizations and they have not
been updated. Other lists were prepared by national and regional organi-
zations, such as the Institute of Public Administration (IPA) in Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia; the Arab League Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization
(ALECSO); and Abdul Hameed Shoman Foundation in Amman, Jordan.17
Catalogers in this region are free to use any of these lists instead of the LCSH
to assign subject headings to non-Roman script materials.

RESEARCH METHOD

The first step in studying the needs of librarians and end users for multilingual
subject access in non-Roman scripts is to look at their language and script
preferences when searching for and retrieving non-Roman materials. To
accomplish this, the authors developed six research questions:

1. What are user habits in searching for non-Roman materials?

2. Are users satisfied with their search results when using controlled subject
terms in English to find foreign-language items in non-Roman script?
3. Do users believe that libraries should add subject searching capability in
non-Roman scripts to library catalogs?
4. Do librarians and end users use international catalogs, databases, or
sources other than OCLC WorldCat and U.S.-based library catalogs to find
materials by subject in languages written in non-Roman scripts?
5. Would users prefer other options beyond controlled vocabulary, such as
user-assigned tags (i.e., social tagging)?
6. What suggestions do end users and librarians have to improve subject
access?

To answer these questions, the authors drafted two questionnaires, one for
librarians (including regular library support staff members) and another for
faculty and student researchers in languages and area studies (referred to
henceforth as “end user”). The authors first tested and got feedback from
library colleagues. The final surveys consisted of twelve questions (see Ap-
pendix), including some that allowed open comments.
The authors posted the invitation to both librarians and end users
through several electronic discussion lists, including the Middle East Librar-
ians Association (MELA), the Council on East Asian Libraries (CEAL), and
the Association of Jewish Libraries (AJL), and languages and area studies
centers. The authors also posted the survey on the OCLC-Cat and AUTOCAT
electronic discussion lists. Because some of the lists were international, a few
responses were received from libraries in other countries, such as Canada
and France. The survey was posted on February 11, 2010 for three weeks and
 Assessing Non-Roman Subject Access to the Library Online Catalog 463

a reminder was sent during the third week (on February 26, 2010). The au-
thors used Google Documents to conduct the survey and collect responses.

RESULTS
Demographic Data
A total of 298 respondents completed the two surveys: 155 librarians and sup-
port staff completed the librarian survey; 117 faculty and student researchers
in languages and area studies completed the end user survey. Twenty-six
respondents to the end user survey identified themselves as faculty librar-
ians, and these were excluded from analysis because their expertise and
perspective were likely different from that of end users.
Librarian participants were asked to identify their areas of work or ex-
pertise by selecting one or more functional areas. Of the 155 librarian re-
spondents, 110 worked primarily in cataloging and technical services, 43
in collection management, 53 in reference and public services, and 50 as
subject specialists. Another 15 respondents classified themselves as bibliog-
raphers or administrative staff. Most respondents in this category identified
themselves as working in more than one area or having expertise outside
their primary work area.
For the end users survey, most (79%) of the 117 end user respondents
were faculty members. Another 17 (15%) were college students; the remain-
ing 8 (7%) identified themselves as administrative staff, visiting scholars, or
independent researchers.

Language Expertise of Respondents

The survey targeted six areas of study that use non-Roman script materials
heavily: East Asian, South Asian, South East Asian, Middle Eastern (other
than Hebrew), Hebraic, and Slavic. Respondents had the option of choosing
expertise in one or more languages. Responses are shown in Figure 1. Par-
ticipants were also able to specify Non-Roman script areas not listed on the
questionnaire. They identified eight others: African, Aramaic, Central Asian,
Indian, Oceanic, Persian, Tibetan, and Yiddish. Some respondents also indi-
cated expertise in Roman-script languages, such as Dutch, French, German,
Greek, Hungarian, and Spanish.

Librarians’ Search of Subject Headings and Keywords in Languages

Written in Non-Roman Scripts
Question 3 was directed only to librarians to investigate their search habits
involving subject headings and keywords in languages written in non-Roman
scripts. The result shows that the majority of librarians (72%) searched subject
464 M. El-Sherbini and S. Chen

FIGURE 1 Area and Language Expertise.

headings using only the English or the Romanized form. Twenty percent
indicated that they use both the English form of subject headings and the
original non-Roman scripts. Very few librarians (3%) reported using only the
original non-Roman scripts for searching subject headings.
When asked about searching by keywords in English or non-Roman
scripts, 42% of the librarians indicated that they search for non-Roman mate-
rials using only English keyword terms. Only 8% indicated that they searched
using exclusively the original non-Roman scripts and 45% searched using
keywords in both the English/Romanized form and the original non-Roman
scripts. These data suggest that librarians are more likely to use non-Roman
scripts in keyword searches and less likely to do so in subject heading
searches.

Use of Controlled English Subject Headings to Search for Non-Roman

Script Materials
When asked about use of English and Romanized subject headings, 115 of
155 librarians (74%) indicated that they search subjects using English and
Romanized headings, and 103 out of 117 (88%) end users indicated the
same.
 Assessing Non-Roman Subject Access to the Library Online Catalog 465

FIGURE 2 Satisfaction with Controlled English Subjects (Level 5 = Most Satisfied; Level 1 =
Least Satisfied).

General Satisfaction with Controlled English Language

Subject Headings
Question 5 asked about general satisfaction with searching catalogs using
controlled English-language subject headings. As Figure 2 illustrates, about
one-third of both end users and librarians were moderately satisfied with this
search method. At the two extremes of satisfaction, the two groups diverged.
The higher satisfaction ratings were given by 46% of librarians but only by
20% of end users (combinations of Level 4 and 5). Similarly, 19% of librarians
were very dissatisfied, as opposed to 40% of end users (combinations of Level
1 and 2). Overall, the librarians seemed more satisfied with their searching
experience using English headings than did the end users.

Satisfaction Level with Using Controlled English Subject in Finding

Non-Roman Script Materials
Question 6 took a closer look to find respondents’ satisfaction levels with
controlled English subject headings when searching specifically for non-
Roman materials. The basis for this analysis is the result of Question 4
(Do you search for items in non-Roman scripts in these catalogs using En-
glish/Romanized subject headings?) where only the Yes responses are being
used here. Figure 3 compares the ratios of satisfaction levels between librar-
ian and end user respondents.
466 M. El-Sherbini and S. Chen

FIGURE 3 Satisfaction with Using Controlled English Subject to Find Non-Roman Script Ma-
terials (Level 5 = Most Satisfied; Level 1 = Least Satisfied).

Results showed that nearly twice as many librarians as end users felt
high satisfaction (15% and 7%, respectively), while the opposite was true at
low satisfaction levels. However, a considerable number from both groups,
40% of librarians and 33% of end users, were quite satisfied with using
controlled English subject headings to locate non-Roman items.

Difficulties Encountered by Librarians and End Users when Searching

for Non-Roman Items via Controlled English Subject Terms
Of the four possible responses, the “don’t find what I want” response in-
dicated the most serious difficulty, together with “English equivalent prob-
lem,” “Romanization problem,” and “others to be specified by participants.”
Responses illustrated in Figure 4 revealed that end users have more diffi-
culties (36%) than the librarian participants (21%) when they are searching
the catalog for non-Roman materials using controlled English subject terms.
Librarians encountered more difficulties (39%) compared to the end users
(17%) when they searched for non-Roman materials by controlled English
subject terms. Both librarians (32%) and end users (20%) had difficulty when
searching for non-Roman materials by subject using Romanization.
Although the number of respondents who commented on the diffi-
culties of finding English equivalents is relatively small, the problems they
point to signal the need to look at alternatives to the use of English lan-
guage equivalents in searching for non-Roman script materials using subject
headings.
 Assessing Non-Roman Subject Access to the Library Online Catalog 467

FIGURE 4 Difficulties/Problems Encountered Using Controlled English Subjects to Find Non-

Roman Script Materials.

Librarian data has been further analyzed from the point of view of
specialization and work area, while end user data also includes infor-
mation about area of specialization and academic status. Figure 5 com-
pares the responses of four groups of librarians: Cataloging/Technical

FIGURE 5 Librarians Divided.

468 M. El-Sherbini and S. Chen

Services, Collection Management, Reference/Public Services, and Subject

specialists.
Figure 5 indicates that cataloging/technical services librarians (22%)
were the most likely to not find what they wanted using controlled English
subject terms, followed by subject specialists (16%), reference/public service
librarians (13%), and collection management librarians (12%). All groups ex-
pressed relatively the same amount of difficulty in searching for non-Roman
materials by subject using Romanized forms of the subject (30–35%). The
reference/public services group had the greatest difficulty (49%) in finding
information using the English subject equivalent to the non-Roman terms, fol-
lowed by collection management (44%), cataloging/technical services (39%),
and subject specialists (34%).
On the end user side, seventeen students responded to this question.
Seven of them (41%) indicted that they had difficulty searching by English
equivalents, seven indicated that they could not find what they were seeking
(41%), one had difficulty using Romanization (6%), and two students (12%)
did not specify the type of problem (Figure 6).
Ninety-two faculty members responded to this question. Inability to
find what they want (34%) was the response chosen by the highest num-
ber of respondents, followed by difficulties with searching by subject using

FIGURE 6 End Users Divided.

 Assessing Non-Roman Subject Access to the Library Online Catalog 469

Romanized forms (21%) and searching using the English equivalent to the
non-Roman subject term (11%).
In the “Others” category of end users (8 administrative staff, visiting
scholars, and independent researchers), two indicated that it was difficult to
search using Romanization, one expressed problems using English equiva-
lents for non-Roman terms, and one person indicated that they did not find
what they wanted. Four did not specify the type of problem.
More than one-hundred write-in responses were given to this question
by both librarian and the end user participants. For easy analysis, we have
grouped them into the following categories:

ROMANIZATION PROBLEMS

Twenty-eight end users and six librarians expressed various concerns about
using Romanized terms to search non-Roman scripts. Most of the end user
comments referred to the Romanization of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean
languages. Even though standards for transliteration have been set by the
American Library Association and Library of Congress, end users are usually
not familiar with them. They indicated that they did not see any consistency
in Romanization, which led them to miss information or to get incomplete
results. Inconsistent Romanization forced end users to search by multiple
forms of terms. Some end users indicated that to obtain good results they
had to search in the original script or by International Standard Book Num-
ber (ISBN). Other end users expressed frustration with the inconsistency in
Romanization, especially in Arabic and Hebrew languages. Other concerns
related to incorrect diacritics and special characters. Romanization frequently
becomes a problem when the subject heading is a personal name, corporate
body, or a geographic name. Both the librarians and end users expressed
concern with the Romanization in library catalog and indicated that the
transliterations are often inconsistent.

LCSH LIMITATIONS

Eight end users and eight librarians expressed concerns about the general
limitations of searching by LCSH, saying the subjects are either too broad
or too biased. The end users’ concerns were related to the quality of sub-
ject access and how the subject headings were assigned by librarians. Some
end users mentioned that the subject headings seem to have been assigned
randomly and did not reflect the content of the resources. Others indicated
that sometimes subject access for non-Roman materials was too broad and
resulted in retrieval of too many unrelated materials. Librarians were con-
cerned that the limitations of LCSH that made it difficult to express subject
470 M. El-Sherbini and S. Chen

concepts in the records for non-Roman materials. In some non-Roman mate-

rials, such as those in Japanese, certain regional topics, events, and concepts
are not covered in the LCSH. As a result of the inability to search non-Roman
materials by LCSH, many librarians are using keyword searching instead.

ENGLISH EQUIVALENT PROBLEMS

Three librarians and six end users commented on problems in finding English
equivalents for non-Roman subject terms. Librarian respondents dealt with
this issue by choosing the closest subject heading from the LCSH to create
a subject heading that in most cases was much too broad. Some librarians
suggested using the terms from the original scripts as a way of making it
easier to express the subject of non-Roman materials. End users tried using
various forms of subject headings, but still did not get the desired results. A
number of them mentioned that there is inconsistency in the Romanization
of some terms in LCSH, particularly when it comes to the use of diacritics.

OTHER WAYS OF SEARCHING FOR NON-ROMAN SUBJECTS

Some participants from both groups (seven users and four librarians) indi-
cated that they rarely used subject headings in favor of other elements, such
as ISBN, OCLC number, and keywords, when searching for non-Roman script
materials. One end user mentioned that searching by a keyword in English
was sometimes helpful in identifying appropriate LCSH terms. Others in-
dicated that searching by author can yield better results. These responses
confirm the opinions of those respondents who find that LCSH is not com-
pletely reliable when searching for non-Roman script materials.

PROBLEMS RELATED TO SUBJECT EXPERTISE

Ten librarians commented on the language and subject expertise of cata-

logers, as well as their knowledge of subject heading structure. For example,
“a skilled subject cataloger would be able to articulate the subject heading
for the Non-Roman scripts materials and to find the equivalent of that sub-
ject in the LCSH.” The librarians who responded indicated that they did not
assign subject headings to non-Roman materials but used unaltered OCLC
WorldCat records. If no OCLC record was found, they either backlogged
the item until another library cataloged it or they create a descriptive catalog
record. To illustrate the lack of subject access, a librarian mentioned that
“My suspicion is that good subject access to Slavic materials may be lacking
because language expertise in cataloging is lacking.”
 Assessing Non-Roman Subject Access to the Library Online Catalog 471

OTHER COMMENTS

There were other comments that did not fall under any of the aforemen-
tioned categories, but are important to mention. Five librarians indicated that
they commonly searched by subject headings in English. For example, two
librarians mentioned that they do not search by non-Roman subjects and
that it did not even occur to them to attempt such a search. Three librarians
commented that since they search for materials in a variety of languages and
cannot supply the terms in all the languages, they use the English language
heading, which organizes and unifies all the items under LCSH subject cat-
egories. One of the end users commented that he/she usually finds what
he/she is looking for but still prefers to have the original script.

The Usefulness of Adding Subject Searching Capability

for Non-Roman Scripts to the Library Catalog
Ninety-three librarians (60%) indicated that adding subject searching in non-
Roman scripts to the library catalog would be useful. Eighteen librarians
(12%) indicated that it would not be useful to do so, and 44 librarians (28%)
were not sure. Ninety-one of the end users (78%) emphasized the usefulness
of adding subject searching capability in non-Roman scripts to the library
catalog, only 4 end users (12%) responded negatively to this question, and
20 (28%) were not sure.
There were 27 comments received from the librarians and 20 comments
from end users who responded “Yes” to this question. Librarian comments
focused on how users would benefit from adding subject searching in non-
Roman scripts to the library catalog. Most librarians were aware of the prob-
lems and the limitations of transliteration and how a variety of Romanization
schemes can confuse the users. They advocated the use of non-Romanized
subject headings to provide better subject access to materials in non-Roman
scripts. They specifically mentioned the value of providing subject access in
non-Roman scripts to faculty, scholars, students, and users with limited En-
glish skills who would be more comfortable doing subject searches in their
own languages. Librarians also acknowledged the limitations of LCSH and
the lack of equivalents in English for concepts expressed in some non-Roman
scripts.
In their comments, some librarians specifically acknowledged the ben-
efits of using non-Roman scripts in finding information by personal names,
institutions, and some of the idiomatic topics. Specific suggestions from
librarians included adding subject capability in non-Roman scripts and pro-
viding controlled vocabulary for subjects. If not possible, then translations
should be available as alternate subjects or keywords. The non-Roman
version should be in the vernacular alphabet or character, not Romanized.
Others strongly supported the idea that both Romanization and vernacular
472 M. El-Sherbini and S. Chen

should be present in all cases, because records are used differently by differ-
ent users (e.g., patrons vs. staff), and having more than a single search option
would be useful. Many staff might need to identify items for acquisition or
reference purposes in languages they do not know.
Some librarians who responded “yes” to this question also voiced some
concerns. For example, they were concerned about the lack of non-Roman
controlled subject headings. Adding subject terms is costly and labor in-
tensive, especially if librarians add them in both English and non-Roman
languages. Others respondents were concerned that local online public ac-
cess catalogs (OPACs) are not designed to accommodate controlled subject
headings from non-Roman thesauri. This, in particular, would call for a great
degree of cooperation between local libraries, catalog software vendors, and
consortia.
To address the cost of adding subject capability in non-Roman scripts,
one librarian recommended social tagging as a less costly alternative to build-
ing a controlled vocabulary system in non-Roman scripts. Another librarian
suggested adding subject searching capability in non-Roman scripts via au-
thority records rather than parallel-script subject headings in bibliographic
records. Recommendations were made to develop controlled subject heading
thesauri for languages which do not have them. Cross references, retaining
non-Roman subject headings from foreign records downloaded to OCLC,
and teaching users how to use a “good vernacular script catalog to help
themselves” were recommended.
Although many end users voiced their support for adding both English
and non-Roman subject access for non-Roman materials to the library catalog,
they also expressed their concerns about the cost and human resources
required to add such headings. Some were concerned about converting
older records. End users offered suggestions that were similar to those
offered by librarians. For example, they suggested adding cross references
to the authority records and using Unicode.
Only seven librarians commented negatively on the usefulness of adding
subject searching capability in non-Roman scripts to the library catalog. They
were concerned about the time needed to add this information and the costs
involved. They preferred to spend their time reducing backlogs and making
those materials available to users. They also mentioned that non-Roman
subject headings already exist in some of the international records loaded
to OCLC. Using LCSH is helpful for those catalogers who do not know
non-Roman language very well and who are not able to assign a subject
equivalent to the English one in the non-Roman scripts. Furthermore, non-
Roman terms are often incompatible with LCSH. Assigning subject headings
in non-Roman scripts is an additional step for catalogers and will require
learning new vocabulary for each language.
There were seventeen comments received from librarians and ten com-
ments from end users who responded “Not sure” to this question. Librarians
 Assessing Non-Roman Subject Access to the Library Online Catalog 473

who responded “not sure” have reservations about library patrons using this
feature. They indicated that it is already difficult to familiarize end users with
English language subject headings. Others asked whether it is worth the cost
and staff time. Some of these librarians were not able to search non-Roman
headings in their catalog. Others questioned whether libraries will have LCSH
for every language, or have the ability to use uncontrolled vocabulary.

Would End Users Prefer to Conduct Subject Searches

in Non-Roman Scripts?
This question was asked in the end user questionnaire only, to address
the end users’ preference and reasons for searching subjects in their own
language and script. Survey results indicated that seventy-nine end user par-
ticipants (68%) answered yes to this question, twenty-three (23%) answered
no, and eleven (9%) did not answer. See Figure 7 for the overall response
and subdivisions by end users’ status.
There were twenty-five comments made by participants who answered
yes, eleven comments by those who answered no, and five by those who
chose neither. We find these comments to be very helpful in understanding
why the end users prefer (or not) to search by subject in their own (non-
Roman script) languages.
Among the twenty-five positive respondent comments, thirteen strongly
advocated for availability of subject headings in their own languages. Some
of them argued that the characteristics of non-Roman script languages, for ex-
ample, the presence of variant forms of characters and multiple transliteration
schemes for a single language, require a system that can handle multiple

FIGURE 7 Would Users Prefer to Search in Non-Roman Script(s)?

474 M. El-Sherbini and S. Chen

non-Roman scripts. Some argued that subject searches, as well as title and
author, often require contextual knowledge, and the advantage of native lan-
guage search should not be overlooked, maintaining that “most [users] want
to approach a search naturally, which means instinctively, in their native
language”; and “subject headings as well as titles [input] in its own language
would make for the ease of searching.”
Some participants, primarily those working in East Asian language areas,
expressed opposing views on this subject. One respondent who answered
yes pointed out that “Chinese names, in particular, have many homophones,”
and “searching by [their] Romanization does not eliminate these”—which
means it would increase recall but reduce the accuracy of search results.
Another who answered no to this question, however, argued that “written
Chinese is non-alphabetical, and its Romanization makes it much more con-
venient to search.” This opinion reflects the fact that most U.S. OPACs are
indexed alphabetically using the Latin alphabet and do not effectively index
other scripts, especially those that are based on characters rather than the
Latin alphabet.
Three comments revealed a preference for LCSH and a hesitance to opt
for a new system. One suggested that subject headings in non-Roman scripts
should only be provided “when the English headings inadequately express
the terms.” Two respondents were amenable to making subject headings
available in the user’s own language, even though they did not feel the need
for them personally.

Using International Bibliographical Resources

Seventy-eight librarian respondents (50%) reported that they used interna-
tional resources when doing subject searches in non-Roman script languages,
compared to fifty-five (47%) end users who responded similarly. In most
cases, they used more than one international bibliographic resource. Table 1
shows the breakdown division by language.

TABLE 1 Use of International Resources by Librarians and End Users

Major Areas Librarians (141) End Users (102)

East Asian
Chinese 13 (9%) 16 (16%)
Japanese 26 (18%) 15 (15%)
Korean 2 (1%) 0
Tibetan 0 3 (3%)
South Asian 2 (1%) 7 (7%)
European 18 (13%) 12 (12%)
Slavic 31 (23%) 3 (3%)
Arabic 10 (7%) 5 (5%)
Hebrew 15 (11%) 24 (24%)
 Assessing Non-Roman Subject Access to the Library Online Catalog 475

Both groups made comments about the absence of subject headings in

many foreign catalogs and databases or the lack of direct correspondence be-
tween European-language and non-European-language subject headings. In
many cases, respondents found it more useful to employ other search strate-
gies, such as keyword (if available), title, or author. Some end users relied
more on Google Scholar, because it allowed them to search for non-Roman
terms within articles and many books.
Overall, both end users and librarians used a variety of international re-
sources, including online catalogs from universities and institutions that use
primarily only non-Roman materials. Librarians searched for subject headings
in international non-Roman scripts databases to construct English-language
equivalents using LCSH. This practice allowed librarians to assign subject
headings to these materials, but the English language equivalents are of-
ten general and do not match the original exactly, causing difficulties in
searching.

User Assigned Social Tagging as Subject Access

Question 11 sought respondent comments on opening the library catalog
for end user tagging. We saw a modestly higher number of positive than
negative responses in both groups. Fifty-five librarians (35%) responding
“Yes” and twenty-eight (18%) responding “No.” In the end user group, forty-
one (29%) responded yes; seventeen (12%) responded no. A large number
of respondents expressed uncertainty, with seventy-two librarians (46%) and
eighty-five end users (59%) choosing the “not sure” answer.
Participants in both groups provided extensive comments in response
to this question. Among the eighteen comments from librarians in favor of
adding end user a tagging feature to the library catalog, some noted the ad-
vantage of tagging into user language expertise and field specialties. Some
agreed that, in general, the folksonomy feature is user friendly and aligned
with the library’s user-centered principles. Some maintained it would help li-
braries stay relevant as they “are competing with commercial book databases
such as Amazon.com.” Along with this, some pointed out that “Web 2.0 in-
teractivity has become a standard way of communicating and information
sharing, and it does not preclude the use of controlled vocabularies.” Many
insisted, however, that end user tagging should not replace controlled sub-
ject access, but rather could serve as a supplement or “as [an] additional
descriptor for the materials.” There were a few comments from librarians
expressing concerns about abuse; some suggested monitoring of tagging by
system librarians or staff.
From the seven positive comments made by end user participants, we
learned that end users agreed with librarians that adding folksonomy fea-
tures to library catalogs would enhance user friendliness. Some believed that
allowing end user tagging could “increase the use of library catalog on a
476 M. El-Sherbini and S. Chen

daily basis.” One user brought up the idea of system supplied subject terms
for library users to use as tags. It is noteworthy that some end users preferred
librarian-assigned subject headings and did not want their replacement by
tagging. Some users, while welcoming folksonomy features in library cata-
logs, also suggested monitoring or filtering as well as user guidelines. They
were concerned about political and ethnic tagging abuses—something that
prompted other participants to reject user tagging altogether (see below).
The eleven comments made by librarian participants who rejected the
idea of end user tagging told us that these librarians were concerned about
the “dubious value” of tagging due to its subjectivity and potential for mis-
use in conveying political, social, or religious agendas. Some maintained that
end user tagging would not be at the same professional level as the library
catalog and would generate quality control problems. Some expressed con-
cern about other possible negative effects, such as the clustering of tagging
over the catalog functionality. Meanwhile, some librarians suggested other
approaches to tagging, such as author- or editor-supplied tags or systems
to allow users to create a “personalized catalog, which can be tagged and
shared among patrons” but not clustered in the public access catalog (OPAC).
Seven librarians questioned the usefulness and management of end user
tagging. The concern here was about the control of the tagging system. On
the end user side, twenty-three respondents insist that tagging cannot replace
the subject heading in controlled vocabularies. Here again, one finds support
for keeping the tagging separate from the library catalog. One respondent
suggested the wiki style to be a model of library tagging.
A minority of librarians and end users seem to agree that adding folk-
sonomy features to library catalogs is important. Allowing end user tagging
may promote the use of the library catalog. However, a significant ratio of
participants indicated that both librarians and end users are not ready for
the user tagging feature until more investigation and experiments are carried
out. Many participants were concerned with the quality of user tagging, and
subsequently suggested monitoring and filtering it. Both end users and li-
brarians support the notion of keeping end user tagging as a separate feature
that would not replace the controlled vocabulary subject headings in library
catalogs.

Ideas or Suggestions to Improve Non-Roman Subject Access

in Library Online Catalogs
Both librarian (sixty-nine) and end user (fifty) participants made numer-
ous suggestions for improving subject access to non-Roman materials. Six
librarians emphasized user needs for searching in non-Roman scripts and
suggested adding non-Roman scripts to older records retroactively. They
also suggested that keyword searching for non-Roman materials should be
available if libraries cannot provide controlled subject access in non-Roman
 Assessing Non-Roman Subject Access to the Library Online Catalog 477

scripts. Others emphasized the “value of retaining non-Roman subject ac-

cess in international records loaded into OCLC WorldCat and the local
OPAC—even when catalogers are using these records to create an equiv-
alent English language record.” One librarian suggested adding the “see”
reference link between the English subject headings and the non-Roman
subject headings. The role of WorldCat in providing access to non-Roman
subjects was prevalent among the suggestions made by librarians. Two li-
brarians urged OCLC to add non-Roman scripts to all non-Latin character
based languages. Two librarians saw value in expanding the Virtual Inter-
national Authority File (VIAF) to include topical and geographic versions of
non-Roman terms so controlled vocabulary would be available for subjects.
Suggestions received from end users were similar to those received from
librarians. The end users wanted to see non-Roman subject access added
to non-Roman records, for older materials as well as the new materials.
One respondent advised that “search ability in non-Roman scripts is a great
place to start. It would really help in granting wider access to pre-1970s and
1980s records where the transliterations are widely variant.” They also want
to be able to search catalogs from various libraries without leaving their
own library system. Two end users were not satisfied with the performance
of librarians in assigning subject headings to non-Roman materials, and they
recommended hiring language specialists to add Romanized subject headings
to non-Roman bibliographic records.
Even though the authors did not ask about consistency in Romaniza-
tion, participants brought this up as a concern. Sixteen end users and eight
librarians were concerned about Romanization and its consistency and accu-
racy, especially when Romanizing personal, corporate, or geographic name
headings, whether used as “author” or “subject entries.” Normalizing diacrit-
ics and special characters in non-Roman scripts and Romanization schemes
was suggested as well. Seven end users made several suggestions to im-
prove the Romanization that included publishing a single standard method
of Romanization, accessing titles by different types of Romanization, such
as the use of a “standard, Unicode-compliant transliteration” and “to use the
Wylie transliteration system for Tibetan (instead of the one on the ALA/LC
Romanization Tables).”
Six librarians provided suggestions about how the OPAC can accommo-
date non-Roman searching. These librarians suggested that all OPACs should
have the ability to change the search interface to accommodate a variety of
non-Roman scripts. One respondent observed that if “Facebook can change
its interface to 50 languages, something as simple as a library catalog should
do the same.” Another suggestion was to index any vernacular characters
present in the bibliographic record and to explore the possibility of trans-
lating online catalog screens into foreign languages to make it easier to use
the catalog. Some respondents suggested adding the capability of sorting
results.
478 M. El-Sherbini and S. Chen

Two librarians made suggestions related to OCLC WorldCat support

of Unicode. For example, “let’s get OCLC to validate all official Unicode
characters available for all languages, and then make sure every record has
both the vernacular and Romanization”; and “support by OCLC for all of
the language character blocks in Unicode is an important desideratum. As
a specific example, Urdu language records cannot be encoded properly on
OCLC because five glyphs required for canonical encoding are not supported
by OCLC and fail to pass verification.” Only one end user made a suggestion
in this area, which was to rely more heavily on WorldCat with its ever-
multiplying parallel-language bibliographic records.
Three librarians recommended retaining controlled subject headings. Al-
though they continue to support non-Roman subject access, they indicated
that they still need to use controlled vocabulary to avoid chaos. Non-Roman
subject headings probably would be useful, but having some kind of stan-
dardization of the headings would be important. Four percent of end users
emphasized the value of controlled vocabulary as well as the need for na-
tional libraries to cooperatively maintain controlled vocabularies that can be
shared worldwide and to maintain quality in their own bibliographic records.
They also suggested finding subject lists used by other libraries in different
languages to build a union subject heading list or a thesaurus.
Two librarians and one end user suggested that users contribute to
the bibliographic record by providing tags. They questioned the need and
usefulness of controlled subject access in today’s digital environment. The
librarians were skeptical about the users’ knowledge of controlled subject
headings and their actual use of subject headings in searching. For this
reason, they urged allowing users to add their own tags. End users suggested
that people who can speak a language are more capable of finding things
they need in that language than a librarian who does not speak it. They also
suggested empowering users to tag.
Only three librarians suggested eliminating controlled vocabulary. Oth-
ers suggested that it would be useful to determine if readers use or need
subject headings, and emphasized the need to reevaluate the use of key-
words. Some asked why if users can search by keywords in any field in the
record, they would need controlled vocabulary access.
One librarian suggested using a combination of controlled and uncon-
trolled subject access using the MARC 21 690 field for non-Roman materials.
There are six end users who did not make suggestions, but expressed their
satisfaction with the current status of access to non-Roman materials.
There were eighteen suggestions made by both librarians and end
users that did not fall into any of the aforementioned categories. Some of
these suggestions were excluded, because they were not relevant to this
research. They included using a convertible keyboard, including the meta-
data downloaded from the publisher’s sites directly into a keyword subject
field in the bibliographic record, and adding the publisher’s summary in the
original language. On the other hand, end users suggested adding special
 Assessing Non-Roman Subject Access to the Library Online Catalog 479

markings to vowels in other languages and suggested that libraries should

translate the technical library language into terms that can be understood by
the end users.

CONCLUSION

Several important trends emerge from the data gathered by this survey.
The first has to do with the searching habits of librarians who search for
materials published in non-Roman scripts. Results of the survey reveal that
most librarians conducting these searches use English or Romanized terms
when conducting subject searches. A smaller percentage of respondents
use both English and the original scripts to search for these materials. The
number of librarians using original script searching exclusively is statistically
insignificant. When conducting subject searches, both the librarians and end
users tend to use LCSH. The picture changes somewhat when it comes to
keyword searching. Here, nearly half of the librarians surveyed indicate that
they use non-Roman scripts in addition to English and Romanized forms.
A large portion of data gathered deals with the level of satisfaction with
English language subject searching for non-Roman script materials. Informa-
tion gathered indicates that librarians tend to be more satisfied with their
English language search results than end users. One possible explanation
for this may be that the librarians are generally more familiar with subject
heading structure and find this type of searching more effective.
Survey respondents were asked to contribute comments to a number
of questions in the survey. One of these asked them to describe problems
they experienced when doing subject searches using English or Romanized
subject terms. Comments provided by the survey respondents highlight a
number of areas of concern.
In the area of Romanization, many respondents expressed concerns
regarding its effects in searching Chinese, Japanese, and Korean language
materials. End users who are not familiar with the structure of LCSH find it
difficult to use and complain of inconsistencies in this area. Inconsistency in
Romanization was a concern of searchers in Arabic and Hebrew languages
as well. Librarians and end users were concerned with the variety of translit-
eration standards for different languages.
In general, the number of statements regarding the difficulties librari-
ans and end users encountered when they searched non-Roman items by
controlled English subject terms indicates a significant level of dissatisfaction
with the current controlled English subject heading system.
The respondents continued to use the Romanized forms in their subject
and keyword searches, due, in large part to the absence of vernacular subject
terms in U.S. library catalogs. Librarians rarely searched the catalog using
non-Roman scripts alone. Librarians and end users used English language
controlled vocabulary to find materials in non-Roman scripts and very few
480 M. El-Sherbini and S. Chen

indicated that they do not use the controlled English/Romanized subject

headings.
Having described their searching habits and problems encountered with
English language or Romanized subject search terms for non-Roman script
materials, survey respondents offered suggestions to improve subject access
to these materials. A substantial majority of librarians and end users felt that
adding non-Roman searching capability would be beneficial to searching.
Individual respondents took time to elaborate on what they thought would
be most helpful. Those respondents who felt that adding non-Roman script
searching capability would not be useful also added comments to justify
their position. End users indicated their preference for non-Roman script
searching by a margin of 4 to 1.
Alternative search methods and sources of information is the next area
addressed by the survey. About half of all the respondents indicated that
they search international library catalogs that offer non-Roman script access.
Many respondents indicated that subject searching in these databases is not
always possible, as many foreign based catalogs do not use subject headings
in their records.
Only 35% of librarians and 26% of end users supported the idea of end
user tagging in library catalogs. Both the librarians and the end users raised
concerns about the quality of the end user tagging, integrity of the catalog,
and the potential for abuse in an environment that does not include some
form of quality control.
Substantial comments received from both librarians and end users high-
lighted areas of opportunity for libraries to make significant improvements
in presenting their resources, especially those in non-Roman scripts, to users
for content discovery. The findings of this survey on the use of non-Roman
subject headings indicate that many end users are not completely dissatisfied
with the current library catalog. What users and librarians want is a system
that is more open to multilingual subject access and that would be more
functional in a global context. The findings also indicate that end users are
not eager to see the user tagging feature added to the library catalog until a
system of monitoring and control can be implemented. Nevertheless, social
networking features should be considered in the process of transforming the
library’s OPAC into a more open and truly user-centered information finding
system.

NOTES

1. The task force advised the ALCTS “Subject Analysis Committee (SAC) working with appropriate
library organizations, to study the needs of library users for multilingual subject access in the appropriate
script(s), and to propose steps to address those needs.” This recommendation did not appear in the
September 18, 2006 Report, but was added later as an additional recommendation and was labeled “not
a high priority.” The Steering Committee on Non-English Access that was appointed at the end of 2007
to oversee the implementation of the task force’s recommendations concluded that this recommendation
 Assessing Non-Roman Subject Access to the Library Online Catalog 481

was vague and broad and fell outside SAC’s scope. They made the following comments to the ALCTS
Board: “This recommendation was issued in 2007. Is it still important today? An evaluation of this
recommendation is needed; a survey of the literature to see what has been written on this topic since
2009 is needed; and forming an interest group within ALCTS to explore this issue further.”
2. James E. Agenbroad, “Romanization is not Enough,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 42,
no. 2 (2006): 21–34.
3. Joan M. Aliprand, “The Structure and Content of MARC 21 Records in the Unicode Environ-
ment,” Information Technology & Libraries 24, no. 4 (December 2005): 170–179.
4. Joan M. Aliprand, “Scripts, Languages, and Authority Control,” Library Resources & Technical
Services 49, no. 4 (October 2005): 243–249.
5. Ron Davies, “Models for Multilingual Subject Access in Online Library Catalogues: The ILO
Experience” (paper presented at the annual conference of the European Library Automation Group,
Bern, Switzerland, April 2–4, 2003).
6. Jung-Ran Park, “Cross-Lingual Name and Subject Access: Mechanisms and Challenges,” Library
Resources & Technical Services 51, no. 3 (July 2007): 186.
7. Ibid.
8. Hans H. Wellisch, “Bibliographic Access to Multilingual Collections,” Library Trends 29, no. 2
(Fall 1980): 223–244.
9. Ibid.
10. John Eilts, “Non-Roman Script Materials in North American Libraries: Automation and Interna-
tional Exchange,” IFLA Conference Proceedings (August 20–25, 1995), http://archive.ifla.org/IV/ifla61/61-
eilj.htm (accessed September 22, 2010).
11. Lois Mai Chan, Xia Lin, and Marcia Zeng, “Structural and Multilingual Approaches to Subject Ac-
cess on the Web,” IFLA Council and General Conference, Bangkok, Thailand (August 20–28, 1999), http://
archive.ifla.org/IV/ifla65/papers/012-117e.htm (accessed September 22, 2010).
12. Elhanan Adler, “Multilingual and Multiscript Subject Access: The Case of Israel,” IFLA
Council and General Conference, Jerusalem, Israel (August 13–18, 2000), http://archive.ifla.org/
IV/ifla66/papers/035-130e.htm (accessed September 22, 2010).
13. SungKyung Kim, “Romanization in Cataloging of Korean Materials,” Cataloging & Classification
Quarterly 43, no. 2 (2006): 53–76; Fereshteh Molavi, “Main Issues in Cataloging Persian Language Materials
in North America,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 43, no. 2 (2006): 77–82.
14. Kaba Abdoulaye, “Perceptions of Cataloguers and End-Users towards Bilingual Authority Files,”
Electronic Library 20, no. 3 (2002): 202–210.
15. Zahiruddin Khurshid, “Arabic Script Materials: Cataloging Issues and Problems,” Cataloging
& Classification Quarterly 34, no. 4 (2002): 67–77; Khalil Shihab, “Arabic and Multilingual Scripts
Sorting and Analysis,” Proceedings of the 6th WSEAS International Conference on Applied Informat-
ics and Communications (Elounda, Greece, August 18–20, 2006): 157–162, http://www.wseas.us/e-
library/conferences/2006elounda1/papers/537-391.pdf (accessed July 4, 2011).
16. Nasser M. Swaydan, Arabic Subject Headings, 2nd ed. (Riyadh: King Saud University Libraries,
1985); Ibrahim A. El-Khazindar, List of Arabic Subject Headings, 3rd ed. (Kuwait: Scientific Research
House, 1983); Sha’ban ‘Abd al-’Aziz Khalifah and Mohammad Awadh Al-’A’idi, Qa’imat Rous al-Maudu’at
al-’Arabiah-al-Kubra, 2nd ed. with additions and revisions (Cairo: Al-Maktaba Al-Akademiah, 1994) 2. v.
(updated by supplements).
17. Institute of Public Administration, Qa’imat Rous al-Maudu’at al-Arabi (Riyadh: IPA, 1992);
Arab League, Educational Cultural and Scientific Organization, Qa’imat Rous al-Maudu’at al-Arabi al-
Mahdoodah (Tunis: ALECSO, 1995); Abdul Hameed Shoman Foundation. . . . et al., collected and edited
by Mahmoud Itayem, Expanded Thesaurus (electronic copy) (Amman: The Foundation, 2001).

APPENDIX: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

The Librarians and end users surveys were combined except for question 3
(directed only for librarians) and Question 9 (directed only for end users).
Currently most U.S.-based library catalogs only provide controlled sub-
ject access in English. At the same time, these U.S.-based libraries do have
482 M. El-Sherbini and S. Chen

significant holdings of materials in non-English, especially non-Latin or non-

Roman scripts. This survey is to investigate the needs to provide subject
access in non-Roman languages. We are interested in identifying the needs
for such access.

1. Please identify your working area (Select all applicable)

◦ Cataloging / Technical services
◦ Collection management
◦ Reference / Public services
◦ Subject specialist
◦ Others (specify)
∗
Specify here if you checked others in Question 1:
2. In which of these areas do you have language expertise? (Select all
applicable)
◦ East Asian
◦ South Asian
◦ South East Asian
◦ Middle Eastern (other than Hebrew)
◦ Hebraic
◦ Slavic
◦ Others (specify)
∗
Specify here if you checked others in Question 2:
3. How do you search subject headings or keywords which are in languages
written in non-Roman script? (Only for Librarians)
Subject headings
◦ I search in English or Romanization
◦ I search in the original non-Roman script
◦ I search both
Keywords
◦ I search in English or Romanization
◦ I search in the original non-Roman script
◦ I search both
4. Currently most U.S. library catalogs only provide subject access in English
(through controlled vocabulary). Do you search for items in non-Roman
scripts in these catalog using English/Romanized subject headings?
◦ Yes
◦ No
5. How do you find search the online library catalog by controlled English
subject access? Least satisfied 1 2 3 4 5 Most satisfied
 Assessing Non-Roman Subject Access to the Library Online Catalog 483

6. Do you find that the presence of controlled English subject headings in

bibliographic records helps you find and identify the non-Roman items
you need? Least helpful 1 2 3 4 5 Most helpful
7. What are some difficulties you encounter when you search non-
Latin/non-Roman items by controlled English subject access? (Choose
all that apply)
◦ I usually don’t find what I want
◦ I don’t know the English equivalent
◦ The Romanization of a term in English subject headings is not known
to me
◦ Others (use the textbox below to specify)
∗
Specify here if you checked others in Question 7:
8. Do you think it would be useful to add subject searching capability in
non-Roman language to the library catalog?
◦ Yes
◦ No
◦ Not sure
∗
Comments for Question 8:
9. Would you prefer to search subjects in your own (non-Roman scripts)
language? (Only for end users)
10. Do you use international catalogs, databases, or sources other than OCLC
WorldCat and U.S. based library catalogs to find material by subject in
non-Roman script languages?
◦ Yes
◦ No
∗
If you choose Yes in this question, please list here some international
catalogs or databases you have accessed:
11. Do you think it is a good idea to make a library catalog open for end
user tagging?
◦ Yes
◦ No
◦ Not sure
∗
Comments for Question 11:
12. List your favorite ideas or suggestion to improve non-Roman subject
access in library online catalog.