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  May 2010

PCCTG1 May 2010

Subject:

Re: Post PCC OpCo addendum to report; PCCNonLatinGuidelinesReportApr29.doc

From:

"Avetyan, Nora" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 17 May 2010 12:52:52 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (116 lines)

I agree Peter. 
Thanks
Nora

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Fletcher, Peter
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 12:39 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Post PCC OpCo addendum to report;
PCCNonLatinGuidelinesReportApr29.doc

We did add language strengthening the recommendation that PCC catalogers
add the non-Latin variants to authority records in the guidelines. What
will really solve the problems is arriving at a preferred form of the
name, which we recommend PCC look into.

Peter 

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 3:06 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Post PCC OpCo addendum to report;
PCCNonLatinGuidelinesReportApr29.doc

I think we can all agree that "just" documenting practice was no small
feat.  But if our charge was indeed to come up with a standard, then we
should have a standard that makes sense.  Which (to me at least) means
we should push for non-Latin variants of name headings to be added to
authority files, along with all of other variant forms.

--Ben
________________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
D. Brooking [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 5:36 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Post PCC OpCo addendum to report;
PCCNonLatinGuidelinesReportApr29.doc

I see variation in the Cyrillic community as well. Most of it I think is
caused by the technical capabilities of the transliteration macro. That
is, if the whole heading is in a Cyrillic language and the macro can
transform it all, catalogers are reluctant to take the time to go back
and
un-Cyrillicize the qualifiers. Still attempting to impose the standard
in
the case of Cyrillic (or other left-to-right scripts) would not be
unreasonable in my opinion.

And at least some HAPY variation is due to right-to-left technical
difficulties with dates and qualifiers and such. But in those cases,
there
is no way the "standard" can be implemented, right? So maybe those
options
can be moved down to the special languages section of the guidelines.

The real answer lies in authority records and a way to link non-Latin
variants to the controlled heading, for both searching and display. It's
not clear to me if a preferred non-Latin form is necessary for this, but
I
would suspect it would make certain kinds of implementations a lot
easier.

Our report is probably a prime piece of evidence of the trouble you get
into without good authority control mechanisms. PCC Standards should
use this as an opportunity to push that forward.

And I do think our charge was to come up with a standard, not just
document current practice. I remember one thing they were hoping for was
to provide consistency across scripts.


************
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 Fri, 14 May 2010, Robert Rendall wrote:

> Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:
>> Re: "the amount of optionality in the guidelines could be reduced by
making
>> some of the "optional" practices optional or mandatory for certain
script
>> groups only", my impression was that we could not do this because
there was
>> not a one-to-one correspondence between a given script/cataloging
community
>> and a given "variant practice".  That is to say some cataloging
communities
>> (particularly HAPY) had more than a single variant in their practice.
>
> Right, but a lot of that variation is pretty much limited to HAPY.  If
we say
> everyone else is required to follow the "standard" practice, we'll
eliminate
> a lot of optionality right off the bat without making anyone very
unhappy.
> The idea of extending HAPY practices to e.g. CJK as an option was
basically a
> suggested innovation.  We could back off from that.  And then we could
see if
> PCC catalogers within individual HAPY script groups could agree on
single
> preferred practices within their own communities.  We can't make those
> decisions for them, but we can recommend that they try.
>
> 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