I am confused as to the real date when this report was completed. I am
also not clear if it matters how old it is or not. Another document on the
archived reports site, http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/corejack.html,
is dated "revised 1996" and is described on the report list as superseded
by the Multicharacter Set section of the BIBCO Core as of 1999.

In the report Keiko forwarded to us, the first recommendation is to study
the issue of non-Latin headings further. I was interested that their
survey respondents (and some TG members) seemed to prefer to have paired
non-Latin headings in all situations. (Even if the headings were in
English!) That actually mirrors the feedback I got at the Slavic Section
meeting in Chicago.

The second thing that caught my attention was footnote number 2, for name
headings. Basically, I didn't understand it. It seems to say the same
thing twice? First, you "may" pair a non-Latin heading if the romanized
heading is standard ALA/LC (implies optional to me). Second, a non-Latin
heading is "required" if the romanized heading is standard ALA/LC.
Confusing.

If this document has been superseded, we may not have to worry about this.
I didn't find that the report helped me on the question of headings. If it
was really written back in 1994, at least that helps explain why they
viewed non-Latin 1xx and 7xx as "mandatory if applicable" (in the chart).

Another related story: my boss, Joe Kiegel, went to a talk about the VIAF
in Chicago. He mentioned to Barbara Tillett that he thought we no longer
needed paired headings in bibs now that we have non-Latin references in
authority records. And Barbara didn't agree. She was certainly hopeful
that the VIAF come to full fruition in her lifetime, but she thought that
we aren't there yet. We are in a transitional time.

If we agree that it is too soon to disallow the practice of adding
non-Latin paired headings for access points and adding them will be
optional, then I think our guidelines have to describe how to do it and
give examples, as well as we can, despite the less than consistent
results. Otherwise we really won't be helping anyone.

And once practice is established and required for non-Latin in the
authority file and RDA relationships flourish, etc., then all the old
non-Latin headings in bibs would be relatively easy to find and delete if
needed. So we do no harm I think.


************
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 Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Fletcher, Peter wrote:

>
> Keiko, all,
>
>  
>
> Thanks Keiko, it is good to see this report and make now of some of their recommendations, see what they were thinking back then. It can
> frame some of the things we have brought up in our discussion.
>
>  
>
> These link to the same thing, I think. This report must have contributed to the ?Core? document which SCS revised about a year ago, Guidelines
> for Multiple Character Sets, (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/coreintro.html#9) to bring it up-to-date with some current developments.
> As you know we are now incorporating this and other PCC documentation.
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> thanks, Peter
>
>  
>
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Suzuki, Keiko
> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 6:32 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Update on non-Latin document
>
>  
>
> Hi Peter and all,
>
>  
>
> Sorry for replying this late stage of Peter's drafting the preliminary report. It was nice talking to some of you in the group in Chicago.
> Especially I thought it was interesting discussion regarding the point Peter mentioned at the end of the below message.
>
>  
>
> Related to that, do you think we could get more background information about "Non-Roman core record task group final report"
> (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/archive/jackphy.html), which is one of the documents we need to review according to our charge (I only have
> a draft charge dated on 7/3/2009) and I pointed out briefly at the meeting? It is rather brief and seems published at the PCC website in
> January 2008 (but I also found it looks like almost entirely the same content of 1994 version in the OCLC CJK Users Group website:
> http://oclccjk.lib.uci.edu/corercd.htm???). I am not much familiar with this one and I would like to know more although if it was really
> originally done in 1994, the environment of our PCC setting might be a bit different now an them.
>
>  
>
> - Keiko
>
>  
>
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Fletcher, Peter
> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:09 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [PCCTG1] Update on non-Latin document
>
>  
>
> Hi all, I assume everyone who went had an uneventful trip back home from Chicago.
>
>  
>
> Just to let you know I am updating our document based on the comments on the document (Google docs) and according to our work during our
> short meeting at ALA. We need to get a preliminary draft done by the end of next week to submit to standards committee. It will be
> incomplete, with the special languages section 3 listed as ?[under development]?, and the parts where examples are needed, ?[needs example]?, just
> like parts of the RDA drafts some of were looking at months ago.
>
>  
>
> I?ll also write a brief report of some of the concerns that arose during our discussion, especially those dealing with our disagreement on
> the matter of whether or not non-Latin script belongs in access  points in bib records or rather in authority record references.
>
>  
>
> 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
>
>  
>
>
>