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  March 2010

PCCTG1 March 2010

Subject:

Re: Non-Latin report latest draft

From:

"Suzuki, Keiko" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:41:01 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (90 lines)

Hi Peter, Robert, David and all,
Just let you know that I had briefly talked with the senior LC cataloging manager who has Korean background. Off the record, he implied that this has still been a long-standing issue, and he could not suggest any good way to get solid consensus. I will try to talk with this person again as well as the other key people tomorrow, but it might be good that we need to include somebody who knows about the CONSER CEG, Les Hawkins?
- Keiko

________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Rendall [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 3:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Non-Latin report latest draft

This is fine with me.

Robert.

Fletcher, Peter wrote:

It could be revised after we submit it; basically, it parrots the rule
in CEG, so it would need to be corrected in both places if it is
incorrect in some way.

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Suzuki, Keiko
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 6:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Non-Latin report latest draft

Hi Peter and all,
Do you know who originally wrote that part of the CEG App. O? Maybe
somebody from LC with Korean expertise? I don't think it's enough to ask
any one or a few Korean catalogers about this, but somebody who has a
bigger background or understands the entire CJK policy need to be
consulted because this is not purely Korean thing, but CJK mixed
script/romanization issue. I'm attending a Japanese specialist
conference today and tomorrow, and might see some Korean experts on
Wednesday. However, I'm not sure I can bring this up and get a solution
before Thursday.
- Keiko
________________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of
Fletcher, Peter [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 2:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Non-Latin report latest draft

I would ask someone with an ability to understand this problem and
Korean to make necessary edits to this special rule if it and the
example is currently deficient or nonsensical. Put it into your copy of
the revised draft, rename the draft, and send it to me and I will copy
and paste the revised rule into my version.

thanks, Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Robert Rendall
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 10:59 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Non-Latin report latest draft

Suzuki, Keiko wrote:


The 2nd and last thing is about Korean spacing issue in 3.2. Robert,


could you remind me what is the Mr. Morimoto's comment? We took this
part from CONCER App. O (See 5. on p. 3 of
http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/pdf/ceg/AppendixO.2009-19.pdf) except I
added "not only descriptive fields and notes, but also headings," to
clarify it applies to headings after we consulted LC Korean experts
through David. If the addition affected something Mr. Morimoto
addressed, then we could surely change the part. But otherwise ...


Keiko, all -

I've attached his original comment.

In his second example, spaces have not been put between the
Korean-script Korean words because the cataloger apparently figured that
this 245 field is not covered by the guideline because it does not
consist "solely" of Korean - it also contains a Japanese parallel title.
Which is sort of ridiculous, but I guess that is what you get if you
take the guideline literally.

Robert.

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

August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
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