Thanks for this message. I am also very concerned about the lack of discussion. Perhaps it is because RDA is still a test, but it seems to remind me of all the trouble music and law catalogers had with AACR2. Will authorities people have a similar problem with RDA because we are not discussing?
Please forgive any typos (recent shoulder surgery)
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Hugh Taylor
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 8:55 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Completion of the work of PCC SCS Non-Latin Script Cataloging Documentation TF
I'd like to pick up on John's announcement to the list earlier this month.
Whilst the Guidelines cover only the creation of *bibliographic*
records, they raise a number of issues which relate equally to authority
data. I was surprised not to have seen these raised - nowhere that I
could find, at least (and apologies if they've been addressed in some
forum I didn't think to check).
The Guidelines allow three options relating to headings (section 1.5.2).
As such it's impossible, I believe, to consider them without having
regard to the implications for NACO work.
184.108.40.206. Parallel fields for headings not established in standard
romanization. Should NACO participants follow this option or not? I
would argue that, in most situations, it's actually closer to NACO
conventions (based on LCRIs) than the "standard" found in 1.5.1. But
it's not totally clear-cut, and that's just my personal interpretation.
220.127.116.11. Entering cataloger-created qualifiers in non-Latin script. Even
before the Guidelines were finally accepted I had already noticed
differences of practice in NACO contributions :-(
18.104.22.168. Omitting dates and cataloger-created qualifiers (right-to-left
scripts only). For no other reason than my distaste for exceptional
practice that's based around the state of (some) technology at a
particular moment in time - or some users' ability to properly use/apply
that technology... - I'd be more than happy to see this option banned
for NACO purposes. But I doubt the decision is up to me...
I'm still trying to get my head around the implications of these options
in other situations - e.g., for WorldCat Local customers. But that's not
in scope for this list.
Right now I'm most interested in knowing where within PCC this
discussion is taking place, or even whether it's taking place. And if
it's not, whose job is it to bring this to the table (and to which table)?
If I've missed something I should have spotted I apologise in advance.
But I'm holding off the sackcloth and ashes for a little while longer.
Head, Collection Development and Description
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB3 9DR, England
email: [log in to unmask] fax: +44 (0)1223 333160
phone: +44 (0)1223 333069 (with voicemail) or
phone: +44 (0)1223 333000 (ask for pager 036)