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.
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.
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.