LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCTG1 Archives


PCCTG1 Archives

PCCTG1 Archives


[email protected]


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  April 2010

PCCTG1 April 2010

Subject:

Re: Feedback; FW: [PCCSCS] FW: Final draft and report for PCC Non-Latin guidelines

From:

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

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 11:02:26 -0700

Content-Type:

MULTIPART/MIXED

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (223 lines)

As to the non-Roman vs. non-Latin,

if the name of our task force includes "non-Latin", seems fair to me that 
that's the term we use in our document. As to being "consistent with 
official, established documentation", OCLC uses "non-Latin" rather than 
"non-Roman" in its official, established documentation. Documentation at 
the PCC web site seems to use both terms. I wouldn't change it at this 
point.




************
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 Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Fletcher, Peter wrote:

> 
> All, please find attached comments on our non-Latin guidelines draft from a member of the SCS. The issue of the terminology of non-Latin
> vs. non-roman is again raised :-}    
> 
>  
> 
> We can make changes to the document that are constructive and useful. I think John points out some useful organizational elements.  
> 
>  
> 
> I would like to know your opinions of the comments.   
> 
>  
> 
> I also have a slightly revised version of the document with a revised 3.2.2.   (CJK, Korean spec. lang. rule that Keiko and David
> conferred on) I will need to resubmit it to SCS, but you don?t need to comment on it as it just ironed out some clarity for the Korean
> spacing rule. I will distribute it to you all, so you all have a copy of the latest draft.
> 
>  
> 
> thanks, Peter
> 
>  
> 
> From: John Ilardo [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 8:03 AM
> To: Fletcher, Peter
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCSCS] FW: Final draft and report for PCC Non-Latin guidelines
> 
>  
> 
> Peter, SCS,
> 
>  
> 
> My comments on the Final Draft-PCC Guidelines for Creating Bibliographic Records in Multiple Character sets are attached.
> 
>  
> 
> Overall, it is an excellent report.
> 
> John
> 
>  
> 
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Fletcher, Peter <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Thanks. We certain put enough time into it and went around and around debating a few issues.
> 
>  
> 
> Concerning the superseded documents, we did not address it in this final report, but the background documents linked to in the report make
> this clear. Specifically, the document for the task force charge, I the last bullet point under B., in the Tasks section, states that it
> will supersede all PCC documentation concerning non-Latin scripts.  http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/scs/PCCNonLatinTFDraftCharge.pdf
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Also, in the final report (not the draft guidelines), the final bullet point recommends that PCC look into pursuing authority control for
> non-Latin script headings (with appropriate partnerships, etc.). We realized that allowing for adding these essentially ?variant? headings
> in the bibliographic records is of limited value and will always create lingering questions regarding which form the non-Latin heading
> should take (not to mention the lack of authority control for these variants). We also realized that this will probably be a huge
> undertaking, but it doesn?t hurt to try.
> 
>  
> 
> Peter
> 
>  
> 
> From: PCC Standing Committee on Standards [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Joe Kiegel
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 12:06 PM
> 
> 
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 
> Subject: Re: [PCCSCS] FW: Final draft and report for PCC Non-Latin guidelines
> 
>  
> 
> This report is excellent--it turned out really well.
> 
>  
> 
> Two comments:
> 
>  
> 
> This doesn't necessarily need to be in the report itself, but after adoption, it should be clear which existing documents are
> superseceded, e.g. sections of the CONSER editing guidelines, etc.  We don't want parallel and different documents to continue.
> 
>  
> 
> Of course, the real solution to the variations in forms of headings in non-Latin scripts is to bring them under authority control.  Wasn't
> something going to be done at LC after the pre-population of the authority file? 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Joe
> 
>  
>
>       ----- Original Message -----
> 
> From: Culbertson, Rebecca
> 
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 4:02 PM
> 
> Subject: [PCCSCS] FW: Final draft and report for PCC Non-Latin guidelines
> 
>  
> 
> Colleagues--  Peter just sent his non-Latin data report which I am now passing on to you.   I just glanced at it?most impressive
> Peter!    Since you will shortly be looking at consolidated reports on the non-book BSRs from me, how about if we give ourselves
> three weeks on Peter?s report? (or is that too long?)
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>  
> 
> Becky
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: Fletcher, Peter [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 3:37 PM
> To: Culbertson, Rebecca
> Subject: Final draft and report for PCC Non-Latin guidelines
> 
>  
> 
> Becky,
> 
>  
> 
> Please find attached the report and PCC guidelines for non-Latin data in bibliographic records.
> 
>  
> 
> I am attaching a Word document (.docx or .doc) for both the report and guidelines. I am attaching a PDF for the guidelines due to
> the probability that the right-to-left (HAPY) scripts in the Word document will reverse themselves (depending on how the reader has
> the language setting on the computer and in Word set up), so the PDF should serve as a check on the non-Latin script examples in the
> Word version.
> 
>  
> 
> It has been an interesting adventure on this task force, and the difficulty of dealing with multiple scripts in one policy document
> cannot be fully appreciated until one works on one.
> 
>  
> 
> I assume that SCS will review this, provide feedback (we may be asked for revisions or more info.?), and then it goes to PCC Policy
> Committee?
> 
>  
> 
> Otherwise, I apologize for the lateness of this report. It is good to be done at least this phase.
> 
>  
> 
> 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

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