Peter,
Thank you for sharing that information with us, it is helpful to know the
thoughts behind the rules.
I am more concerned about losing certain non-Latin data in cataloging
description, particularly with the CONSER standard record practice. Some of
the optional data is useful to build cross references in authority record.
One example of these is the CSR transcription of $b in 245 is optional if
the heading is established. However, if a variant form is not transcribed
in 245 $b and that is not already in 4xx of the established authority
record, then, it would be lost.
I have added one example and comments in purple. Please feel free to edit
or remove as you see appropriate.
Julie Su
-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Fletcher, Peter
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 1:33 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] PCC Non Latin Guidelines New Draft Jan2010 Review
Interesting points.
One point of discussion that came up at CC:DA was there is limited value in
the long term of having variant non-Latin headings in bib records (as
parallels to established headings), and that the eventual goal should be
established headings in the vernacular script. We could recommend in our
report to SCS and that some thought and planning needs to be given to this
task. WE could offer some general suggestions as to how to approach it in
the report(such as using use similar rules we already use to establish
headings based on the piece in hand, etc. They could have their own
authority records or it could be a new, designated MARC field in the Latin
authority record. I don't see why you couldn't establish the heading in both
scripts at the same time, since the cataloger is working with the piece in
hand in the original language.)
One thing to keep in mind is that even if we are consistent with the
parallel non-Latin headings, they are not under authority control and they
are essentially a **variant** consisting of a weird hybrid of
Latin/non-Latin text that may make little sense to a user. These are
variants, not established headings. The established, linked heading provides
consistency.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of D. Brooking
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 12:05 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] PCC Non Latin Guidelines New Draft Jan2010 Review
I also added some comments.
Section 5.2.1: This is the part that I am the least comfortable with. We
do realize the result of allowing a wide variety of optional practices
will be a lot of inconsistency in how non-Latin headings will be formed.
That is, even the same heading in Latin AACR2/RDA will end up with several
non-Latin versions across different bib records.
I am not sure if the consequences will be terrible, or if it won't matter
or what. Instinctually as a cataloger I prefer consistency when it comes
to headings. That being said,
If we do go with 5.2.1 as it is now, I think we may want to think ahead to
some of the consequences in a shared bib environment. That is, a PCC
library may choose to apply an option or not in their local catalog and
try to achieve consistency at the local level. What about practice at the
shared level?
If someone chose NOT to supply a qualifier at all in a non-Latin heading,
would it be OK for another PCC library to supply that "missing" data by
adding a qualifier? If the qualifier is already there, but in Latin, would
it be OK to replace it with an original script version? Or vice versa? To
"correct" a non-Latin qualifier by putting it back into Latin?
Should we offer guidance on this?
P.S. Since OCLC has opened up the addition of non-Latin fields to all
libraries, non-PCC libraries will be able to add non-Latin fields to PCC
records. At least I think so. I still think you need more authorization to
*change* a non-Latin field (as opposed to adding one that wasn't there
before).
************
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, 8 Feb 2010, Deng, Shi wrote:
>
> Dear Peter and all,
>
>
>
> I made a few comments on the Google site, and realized that I didn?t
follow your instruction of making color font. Instead, I highlighted
> my comments in yellow starting with ?[sd?.
>
>
>
> Two general comments here:
>
>
>
> Examples: wonder if they should be in the order of MARC tags (maybe too
picky)? Or if they are already in the order to illustrate the
> instruction, it this is the case, I would like see example right under the
specific instruction rather than under a section of a group
> instructions (i.e. 2.5.1)
>
>
>
> Special Language or script guidelines: I like to have a language being
listed even though there is no unique instruction. I interpret it
> as implication that we looked into it but didn?t find any.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> --Shi
>
>
>
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Fletcher, Peter
> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 1:54 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [PCCTG1] PCC Non Latin Guidelines New Draft Jan2010 Review
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I attached a ?track changes? draft of the guidelines so you can see what
has been changed (make sure that in Word, under ?Review? you have
> ?track changes? select, and ?Final showing markup?. I uploaded the final
version of the draft to the Google site. Here is the link:
>
>
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ASYfWJKLBrLzZHd2eGpwOV80ZG1wYzZkejc&hl=en
>
> I should allow you access without login and able to edit/make comments
with colored text as we did before. (note: as usual, it did not
> preserve the formatting correctly for the many different scripts?do not
worry too much about this on this Google docs version, since it is
> just for us to comment upon, and I will eventually incorporate our changes
to a local draft). Also, it is best for us to make comments at
> the Google site version, rather than have many different versions of the
draft sent around via attachment. The version posted at Google
> docs will not preserve the ?track changes? view in a useful manner, which
is why I am also sending a track changes version as an
> attachment.
>
>
>
> Especially note sections 2.5 (headings) and 2.5.1 Headings: optional
practice. Section 2.5 preserves the CEG strict parallel heading
> practice. Section 2.5.1 offers exceptions to this practice along the lines
of the kinds of options we asked for feedback (allowing
> omission of qualifiers; parallel non-Latin headings for headings
established in a conventional form; qualifiers in original script.). I
> thought this might be a good approach to allow some to continue the
current CEG practice, others can apply the options/exceptions. Also,
> allowing for exceptions in the general section of the document means we do
not have to repeat them in each special language section where
> they might be used.
>
>
>
> I also added a special rule each for Korean, Hebrew/Yiddish, and Cyrillic
which were suggested in the feedback.
>
>
>
> We have until Mar. 1 to complete this phase of the work. I think most of
the work is done (I hope) for the general section; we may need
> some more special script/language rules (assuming there are any more to
add that would not be covered by section 2.5.2.) (remember, this
> is always a work in progress). So, please:
>
> A) general comments/suggestions regarding the draft
>
> B) suggest changes to wording (please use the Google site and added
colored text as before so we can all see what you want to change)
>
> C) suggest any new, special rules (different from section 2.5.1.) for
your special language sections (edit them into the Google doc)
>
> D) Any new useful examples (e.g., at CC:DA the need for a 505 contents
note plus guidelines for transcriptions in Hebrew/Yiddish was
> pointed out to me)
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks, peter
>
>
>
|