LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCTG1 Archives


PCCTG1 Archives

PCCTG1 Archives


PCCTG1@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PCCTG1 Home

PCCTG1 Home

PCCTG1  July 2009

PCCTG1 July 2009

Subject:

Re: Update on non-Latin document

From:

"D. Brooking" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:19:39 -0700

Content-Type:

MULTIPART/MIXED

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (158 lines)


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is dated "revised 1996" and is described on the report list as superseded 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If this document has been superseded, we may not have to worry about this.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
> 
>  
> 
> 
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2019
October 2019
August 2019
July 2019
May 2019
April 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
October 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
December 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
June 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
July 2000

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager