I'll add the text as David wrote it here: When PCC catalogers do supply
parallel fields for headings in bibliographic records, they are strongly
encouraged to replicate this intellectual work as non-Latin variants in
authority records as part of NACO.
Unless anyone is violently opposed.
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of David W Reser
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 12:41 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Non Latin document final check
Robert-- I don't think we could require it, but your added thoughts may
suggest a few additional words to be added to the effect of you came
this far, why not go a little further, e.g., "When PCC catalogers do
supply parallel fields for headings in bibliographic records, they are
strongly encouraged to replicate this intellectual work as non-Latin
variants in authority records as part of NACO-- a simple "cut and paste"
will usually make this an efficient process and extend the benefit
beyond a single bibliographic record."
>>> Robert Rendall <[log in to unmask]> 3/22/2010 3:25 PM >>>
The set of changes I made in that document was meant to be limited to
cosmetic and uncontroversial ones, so it definitely doesn't reflect
everything we discussed last week!
On your point 4, non-Latin references are not required in authority
records, and neither are non-Latin headings in bib. records, but could
we require a cataloger exercising the option to enter a non-Latin
heading in a bib. record to also add it to the corresponding authority
record? Maybe not, but I'll just ask.
David W Reser wrote:
> Boy, I picked the wrong Friday to be off! Just catching up with the
many messages-- rather than try to respond to each, I'll respond to
Robert's revision that was attached to this message and throw in a few
> First, I agree with all of Robert's changes.
> 1. Second paragraph, last sentence refers to "MARC formats" but I
think what was meant was MARC record types (formats at this point would
mean bibliographic, authority, holdings).
> 2. Section 2, general guidelines: Please change the link to the
ALA-LC romanization tables to:
> (we assigned a persistent URL to publish in RDA and other places,
particularly useful since it is not known how long the "cpso" domain
> 3. Section 2.3.1: Example for Xun yi cao de chun tian [I think
there was an earlier comment to delete the example, to which I would
concur-- not really clear what is being illustrated here]
> 4. Section 2.5, first paragraph, last sentence. I would agree with
strengthening the statement somewhat (It is *strongly* recommended ...),
but since non-Latin variants are optional in NACO, you can't really say
"should" as some have suggested in other messages.
> Thanks for all the hard work!
>>>> Robert Rendall <[log in to unmask]> 3/22/2010 1:42 PM >>>
> Attached is a copy of the original Word document (not reflecting any
> more recent changes Peter has made) with tracked editing changes
> (spaces, capitalization, punctuation, indenting "not" examples, some
> wording) to the opening text, the Introduction, and sections 1, 2,
> 2.3, 2.3.1, 2.4, 2.5, 188.8.131.52, 3.2.3, and 3.3.1.
> Indenting the "not" examples doesn't seem to show up in tracked
> but I think it sets them off better.
> Fletcher, Peter wrote:
>> All, also, please, when you send me (or to the list) a revised, track
>> changes of the document, name it with your name, for example,
>> Non-LatinRobertMarch19, or something like that so I can keep track.
>> thanks, Peter