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:

Fri, 14 May 2010 14:32:51 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (77 lines)

I suppose I am not sold on the urgency of conformity for these variant,
parallel non-Latin headings. My thinking is that these will eventually
be removed from bibliographic records when systems make better use of
authority record variants, but that they do enrich the record as
imperfect as they may be. And, better yet, I hope that preferred forms
of headings in their original script are established and replace the
variants. 

I was quite surprised at OpCo to see that at least one person (and that
person's staff) was going to take the time out to ensure conformity and
engage in possible editing wars. I am not sure that is the general
consensus and I feel rather strongly that that is a wrong-headed
attitude for professional catalog librarians to be taking in this day
and age of limited resources, etc., etc., especially when the entirety
of the Latin part of a PCC record conforms to strict standards. 

I am willing to accept removal of the optional section, but I felt it
was important for us to try to be inclusive with these guidelines and
especially try to recognize the problems with right-to-left script. In
many cases right-to-left original script headings under standard
practice are truly absurd creations and it is questionable if they help
anyone.

I think I will add Robert's idea for limiting the optional headings
practice to HAPY as an "option" for PCC to consider (along with the
option to remove it entirely) in my addendum. Of course, it may just
come back to us for consideration. I guess I am hoping for some wise
LC/PCC guru to come and give the final, well-informed decision on this
matter. 

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 2:09 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Post PCC OpCo addendum to report;
PCCNonLatinGuidelinesReportApr29.doc

Robert,

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).

--b 
________________________________________
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.

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