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:

Benjamin A Abrahamse <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 14 May 2010 16:51:22 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (24 lines)

Peter, I think your new 'graph pretty accurately sums up what happened at Opco.

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. 

My overall feeling, which I believe I communicated to both Peter and Robert at the PCC meeting is, while there is merit to the charge that we have left too many options on the table in our document, selecting a single practice as authoritative lies somewhat outside the charge of our group.  We have done our best to present what we think *should* be mainstream PCC practice, but as a practical matter we are not really in a position to dictate to the wider community that is *has* to be thus.  (If the Standards committee wants to go beyond this, seems to me they should do it as the next step.)  So, as long as we cannot move beyond "recommended" and "optional" practices we do the PCC community no favors by leaving out practices which we may consider sub-optimal but nonetheless exist and are followed by some subset of catalogers.

Further, if we were charged with selecting a single, authoritative set of practices for non-Latin cataloging in PCC and excluding all others, then we should be arguing for (in my opinion) having non-Latin variant headings (as opposed to descriptive data) appear as references in authority records, where they conceptually belong.  But I seem to recall we ruled that out long ago as unfeasible, or at the very least unlikely to encourage participation of non-Latin cataloging communities in PCC cataloging.

--Ben
________________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Rendall [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 4:30 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Post PCC OpCo addendum to report; PCCNonLatinGuidelinesReportApr29.doc

I would add that 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 (e.g. Arabic/Persian, Hebrew) and forbidden within PCC for others (Cyrillic, Greek, CJK).  That would make practice more predictable for a large proportion of PCC records without alienating cataloging communities for which these options are already standard practice.

Robert.

Fletcher, Peter wrote:
All, I added an addendum to the report for the non-Latin guidelines based on the feedback at PCC OpCo. It is at the end of the report, and I numbered the sections of the report for referral purposes (from the addendum). I know David, Ben, Jiping, and Robert were there. Let me know if I captured the issues, etc.

Peter

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

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