Diana, good point about making suggestions/guidelines for HAPY, which of course the language specialists on our task force can help to add to the special section if we all (or a majority) agree to go in that direction. Of course, such special guidelines would have to be "standard" in their own way, and I am not sure how you might establish such standards that allow considerable variation. I appears, however, that at least Arabic--according to the CEG appendix--are not allowing the freedom to provide non-Latin forms based on forms that don't have a one-to-one correlation with the established form (i.e., are not established according the ALC-LC transliteration tables).
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of D. Brooking
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 1:08 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Question: Headings: non Latin in qualifiers and for Latinized forms
I am in favor of #1.
We could try getting closer to #2 by making some kind of suggestions that
would help non-Latin headings for HAPY be more consistent. But I don't
know enough about the area to suggest specifics. (See LC's White Paper on
Non-Latin in Authority Records for their description of HAPY practice for
bib headings.)
I am not in favor of #3. We do not yet even have rules for how to add
non-Latin references to authority records. PCC practice does not yet
require non-Latin references in authority records. We just aren't ready
for #3.
************
Diana Brooking (206) 685-0389
Cataloging Librarian (206) 685-8782 fax
Suzzallo Library [log in to unmask]
University of Washington
Box 352900
Seattle WA 98195-2900
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Fletcher, Peter wrote:
>
> All, this of course, is one of our most difficult issues to deal with. To quote our document thus far:
>
>
>
> for headings:
>
>
>
> ?For subjects and headings fields, non-Latin equivalents are given only for headings and parts of headings that have received standard1
> Romanization. Do not supply non-Latin data for cataloger supplied qualifiers, or headings and parts of headings established in a
> conventional, Latin-style. (See section 3 for exceptions to this rule)?
>
>
>
> Note my addition in bold/parenthesis. This represents essentially the status quo, since PCC Hebraica catalogers are currently providing
> parallel fiends in bib records for non-standard forms. (remember this document is aimed at PCC catalogers)
>
>
>
> The options are:
>
> 1. Status quo (i.e., allowing exceptions to some languages, e.g., Hebrew)
>
> 2. Eliminate any exceptions (i.e., reign in those renegades and have them conform! J)
>
> 3. Recommend adding parallel fields for non-Latin script only to authority records
>
> Let?s look at 2: Con: We may create guidelines that eliminate the exceptions, but would they follow them? Would they stop doing what they
> are used to doing and think is valuable or necessary (depending on local ILS) to the bib record? Pro: more standardized approach to the
> data and possible better machine manipulation if the headings are based on the standard.
>
>
>
> And 3: Con: A similar problem as with 2: would they see the wisdom of this approach and stop adding data to records they consider valuable
> or even necessary for their local systems? Pro: Definitely more standard for the bib record, since only descriptive date found on the item
> would be transcribed into the bib record; all variant forms beyond even the standard could be added to the authority record.
>
>
>
> And 1, the status quo: Pro: most PCC catalogers would follow our guidelines since that is close to what they are doing and see as valuable
> or necessary, and it would provide a kind of standard approach for a large part of the bib record that would at least be documented in the
> guidelines. Con: bib records will have some non-standard non-Latin data in their headings fields.
>
>
>
> If you could all respond soon I would appreciate it, since I have to have a preliminary report in within the few weeks. I am asking Joan
> Schuitema if our deadline could be pushed to mid-August. I think this is reasonable, since our final report isn?t even due until Dec., but
> we do have to have time for feedback from our preliminary report that will obviously steer the direction of our final report.
>
>
>
> best, Peter
>
>
>
> Peter Fletcher
>
> Cyrillic Catalog Librarian and Metadata Specialist
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Office: (310) 206-3927
>
> Fax: (310) 794-9357
>
> UCLA Cataloging & Metadata Center
>
> 11020 Kinross Avenue
>
> Box 957230
>
> Los Angeles, CA 90095-7230
>
>
>
>
>
|