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:

"Fletcher, Peter" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 18 May 2010 15:35:52 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

I think the main point at OpCo that WAS agreed on is that a preferred form for non-Latin headings would be a good thing. Our guidelines also explicitly recommend in the 1st paragraph of 1.5 to place these variants into the authority record as part of NACO work.

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of D. Brooking
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 10:45 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Post PCC OpCo addendum to report; PCCNonLatinGuidelinesReportApr29.doc


Yes, I think that is the main take away from our report with regard to the 
headings. The reason we have so many options is that we got feedback that 
people want non-Latin variants to search, but we discovered that the bib 
record is not the ideal place to do this. For the exact same reasons we 
don't include all possible variants of Latin script name headings in bibs!

The authority record is where this needs to happen. The idea of having a 
preferred non-Latin form needs to be revisited and ways to increase the 
number of non-Latin x-refs in authority records need to be found. Anything 
we can do to encourage/push that would be great. But I did get the 
impression from Peter that that point was made clear at the OpCo meeting??



************
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 Tue, 18 May 2010, Suzuki, Keiko wrote:

> 
> How about pushing harder about the authority control and requiring all the non-Latin variants in PCC records to be in the authority
> records as x-refs including non-standard practice headings? Does this ease the concern of the oppositions to include the optional practice
> section 1.5.2? Or this is not practical?
> 
> - Keiko
> 
>  
> 
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Rendall
> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 4:02 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Post PCC OpCo addendum to report; PCCNonLatinGuidelinesReportApr29.doc
> 
>  
> 
> And, once that is done, systems that can make intelligent use of that preferred form.  Until then, we need to provide guidelines that will
> be useful for cataloging in current and near-term future systems, which is what we've tried to do.  In that context, I think what we came
> up with makes sense enough.
> 
> Robert.
> 
> Fletcher, Peter wrote:
> 
> 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

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