I see what you're saying, and it definitely makes some sense. I'm not sure if it will satisfy the purists, who will likely still chafe at the thought that some records are being coded PCC but exhibiting variant practice in the headings (albeit fewer of them).
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Rendall [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 4:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Post PCC OpCo addendum to report; PCCNonLatinGuidelinesReportApr29.doc
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.