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 Concerning the superseded documents, we did not address it in this final report, but the background documents linked to in the report make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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|