Print

Print


The Hebrew 100 in Appendix D Model A (Zilbershtain, Yitshak ben David 
Yosef, with dots below some letters) is following ALA-LC romanization.  
In this case the systematically romanized form happens to be the 
authorized form, so this example does not illustrate the HAPY practice 
we've been talking about.  Ditto for the Arabic example below.  And 
neither example includes a name with dates, so they're not providing any 
guidance there either.

Robert.

D. Brooking wrote:
>
> Caroline,
>
> The MARC documentation for 880 and for App. D. both give examples of 
> access fields, not just descriptive fields. Where are you reading that 
> it applies to descriptive fields only?
>
> (This is very hard over email. Are we going to meet in Chicago? 
> Clearly we have too much documentation! Or maybe not enough 
> documentation spread over too many places... )
>
> Caroline, maybe you can look at the Hebrew example in MARC App. D. Is 
> the romanized 100 following ALA transliteration? (I notice ligatures 
> are missing in the Russian example, so it's not clear all the 
> diacritics are represented in the examples, sadly, it might be hard to 
> tell.)
>
>
>
> ************
> 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 Wed, 20 May 2009, Miller, Caroline wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> Therein lies the problem.  I read through all the MARC documentation 
>> cited below and as far as I can tell the assumption is that 880 
>> parallel fields are for direct transcription of non-roman data from 
>> the piece and the Romanized fields are direct standard romanizations 
>> of those fields **for descriptive fields only** not for fields 
>> falling under authority control.  There are no guidelines for those 
>> fields.  I believe our charge was to come up with guidelines for 
>> non-roman data in authority-controlled fields within the bib record.  
>> Does this make sense?  Peter?
>>
>> Am I missing something?
>>
>> Caroline
>>
>> Caroline R. Miller
>> Head of Monographic Cataloging
>> and Authority/Database Maintenance Sections
>> UCLA Library Cataloging & Metadata Center
>> BOX 957230
>> 11020 Kinross Ave.
>> Los Angeles, CA 90095-7230
>> E-mail:  [log in to unmask]
>> Phone:  (310) 825-4446
>> Fax:  (310) 794-9357
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Deng, Shi [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 5:34 PM
>> To: D. Brooking; Suzuki, Keiko
>> Cc: Fletcher, Peter; Miller, Caroline; Avetyan, Nora; Joanna Dyla; 
>> [log in to unmask]; Julie Su; Thurston, Patricia; [log in to unmask]; 
>> [log in to unmask]; Deng, Shi
>> Subject: RE: PCC Non Latin task force new member; timeline; update
>>
>> Dear Diana, and all,
>>
>> I was talking about MARC standards. When non-Latin data recorded in a 
>> bib record, they are in the 880 fields as "Alternate Graphic 
>> Representation" (http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd880.html) or 
>> "parallel fields" as catalogers often refer to. It is defined: "Fully 
>> content-designated representation, in a different script, of another 
>> field in the same record." In 880 section, it also refer to MARC21 
>> Bibliographic Appendix D on Multiscript Records 
>> (http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/ecbdmulti.html). It talks 
>> about model A vernacular and transliteration. To my understanding, 
>> 880 fields used for the non-Latin script data of which we based for 
>> transliterating into Romanized data according to ALA/LC Romanization 
>> Tables and to be linked to the transliterated field. Of course, if 
>> there is no transliterated data, it won't be linked but would be 
>> allowed to stay in the OCLC MARC record now.
>>
>> Because all name headings in bib records, currently established 
>> according to AACR2/LCRI, are in Romanized form, if we provide a 
>> parallel field (meaning to link together both non-Latin script data 
>> to its transliterated representation), it should be the non-Latin 
>> script data we based for transliteration. Otherwise it was not called 
>> parallel field, but a hybrid field.
>>
>> If my interpretation was wrong, then the CEAL cataloging community 
>> won't have issue with the access points in bib records for author who 
>> have names in both non-Latin (i.e. Chinese) and Latin (i.e. English) 
>> form that could not display together in access points in bib records, 
>> for example, LCCN n  50057442 for ??? = Ye, Weilian, Yip, Wai-lim. 
>> Yip, Wai-lim is the heading, and right now it would be called hybrid 
>> if it links to ???.
>>
>> That's why I said yes to Peter's question or statement regarding 
>> providing parallel field to name headings.  Actually if you read our 
>> charge the last second bullet, it says: "Any resulting documentation 
>> must conform to MARC21 Model A: ?vernacular and transliteration: 
>> parallel fields (MARC 880 fields) are used when data needs to be 
>> duplicated to express it in both the original vernacular script and 
>> transliterated in one of more scripts.?*** 
>> (http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/ecbdmulti.html)"
>>
>> Diana, I think I was not accurate to refer to 880 when I should refer 
>> to Appendix D. Sorry to cause the confusion.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> --Shi
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: D. Brooking [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 1:02 PM
>> To: Suzuki, Keiko
>> Cc: Deng, Shi; Fletcher, Peter; Miller, Caroline; Avetyan, Nora; 
>> Joanna Dyla; [log in to unmask]; Julie Su; Thurston, Patricia; 
>> [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: RE: PCC Non Latin task force new member; timeline; update
>>
>> CONSER is a PCC document, not MARC standards. Shi seemed to think there
>> was something in the MARC standards that mandated that no non-Latin 
>> field
>> should be supplied if the romanized heading was not ALA-romanization.
>> Maybe she was thinking of Appendix O? If so, that only applies to 
>> CJK, not
>> Hebrew, etc.
>>
>>
>> ************
>> 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 Wed, 20 May 2009, Suzuki, Keiko wrote:
>>
>>> Diane, Maybe you are talking about "Appendix O.  Creating records with
>>> data in nonroman script for Chinese, Japanese, and Korean serials" in
>>> CONSER Editing Guide? Try "#7. Headings [Optional]". - Keiko
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: D. Brooking [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 1:54 PM
>>> To: Deng, Shi
>>> Cc: Fletcher, Peter; Miller, Caroline; Avetyan, Nora; Joanna Dyla; 
>>> [log in to unmask]; Julie Su; Suzuki, Keiko; Thurston, Patricia; 
>>> [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: RE: PCC Non Latin task force new member; timeline; update
>>>
>>> Shi,
>>>
>>> Could you tell me where in the MARC standards it specifies exactly the
>>> form of headings that should go in 880 fields and when to leave them 
>>> out?
>>> I can't find anything that addresses this issue.
>>>
>>>
>>> The HAPY community has been supplying parallel non-Latin fields for
>>> non-ALA romanized headings for ages. In fact, I think someone told 
>>> me that
>>> even if a heading is in ALA-romanization, the tendency is to take the
>>> non-Latin form found on the piece and leave off qualifiers and dates 
>>> and
>>> such. Part of the problem is the whole right-to-left thing, that 
>>> makes it
>>> hard to mix in qualifiers?? It would be good to know the basis for this
>>> practice before we decide anything about it. I truly don't 
>>> understand it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ************
>>> 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 Wed, 20 May 2009, Deng, Shi wrote:
>>>
>>>> Peter, I assume that you asking question regarding name headings in 
>>>> 1xx,
>>>> 6xx, and 7xx.  To answer your question, Yes, it should be the same
>>>> practice in CJK that we simply do not provide CJK script equivalent 
>>>> if a
>>>> non-ALA/LC romanzied form was established as a heading. This is 
>>>> bound by
>>>> MARC standards for 880 application. So it would be out of our hand to
>>>> decide something differently, not that as if we haven't thought about
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> --Shi
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Fletcher, Peter [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 5:00 PM
>>>> To: Miller, Caroline; D. Brooking; Avetyan, Nora
>>>> Cc: Joanna Dyla; [log in to unmask]; Julie Su; [log in to unmask]; 
>>>> [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; Deng, Shi; 
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: RE: PCC Non Latin task force new member; timeline; update
>>>>
>>>> What the best practice would be for parallel non-Latin *heading* 
>>>> fields in *bibliographic* records in such cases--Hebrew and Yiddish 
>>>> found forms and what the cataloging rules tell us to use as the 
>>>> heading--is what we, and especially the Hebraica experts on this 
>>>> task force, can decide (is this also an issue for Arabic and 
>>>> Persian?).
>>>>
>>>> Do we simply not provide the Hebrew equivalent (i.e., no parallel 
>>>> field) if a non-ALC/LC Romanized version is used as the established 
>>>> heading? This is something we need to think about and decide. We 
>>>> need to be careful. Joanna's example was a good example of how sort 
>>>> of free-form it could get. To me consistency is really important in 
>>>> our work for various reasons (consistent headings in the catalog 
>>>> for the user; cataloger time, etc.), and the ALA/LC Romanization 
>>>> tables are essentially our basis for consistency.
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Miller, Caroline
>>>> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 1:07 PM
>>>> To: 'D. Brooking'; Avetyan, Nora
>>>> Cc: Joanna Dyla; Fletcher, Peter; [log in to unmask]; Julie Su; 
>>>> [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; 
>>>> [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: RE: PCC Non Latin task force new member; timeline; update
>>>>
>>>> I know that with Hebrew and Yiddish there are different rules.  If 
>>>> there is a Romanized form in the piece, you are required to use 
>>>> that as your heading even if the entire piece is in Hebrew or 
>>>> Yiddish.  More often than not, the found form is not in standard 
>>>> Romanization per ALA-LC.  Most works published in Hebrew do not 
>>>> contain vowels.  There are often multiple ways to Romanize a name 
>>>> with the Israeli phone book being the reference source for modern 
>>>> Israeli authors.  Automated reverse Romanization from the ALA-LC 
>>>> Romanization table for Hebrew would introduce a lot of errors.
>>>>
>>>> I think this topic is critical for the new ALCTS non-roman group 
>>>> now being formed because they will be discussing a lot of policy 
>>>> issues.  I surely hope that OCLC will be represented on that 
>>>> group.  It would also be nice to have someone from this PCC group 
>>>> be a liaison to the ALCTS group.
>>>>
>>>> I believe that the charge of this group is to review existing PCC 
>>>> documentation and, by extension (IMO) LC documentation, for 
>>>> inconsistencies with an eye toward recommending more standardized 
>>>> practices across all the available non-roman scripts and other 
>>>> non-roman scripts as they become available in OCLC.  There is much 
>>>> to discuss about non-roman issues that have been ignored far too 
>>>> long but we can't do it all!
>>>>
>>>> Caroline R. Miller
>>>> Head of Monographic Cataloging
>>>> and Authority/Database Maintenance Sections
>>>> UCLA Library Cataloging & Metadata Center
>>>> BOX 957230
>>>> 11020 Kinross Ave.
>>>> Los Angeles, CA 90095-7230
>>>> E-mail:  [log in to unmask]
>>>> Phone:  (310) 825-4446
>>>> Fax:  (310) 794-9357
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: D. Brooking [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 12:48 PM
>>>> To: Avetyan, Nora
>>>> Cc: Joanna Dyla; Fletcher, Peter; [log in to unmask]; Julie Su; 
>>>> [log in to unmask]; Miller, Caroline; 
>>>> [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; 
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: RE: PCC Non Latin task force new member; timeline; update
>>>>
>>>> This is complex.
>>>>
>>>> The record Joanna found has a mistake in it. The name heading was
>>>> established in its Russian form, so the non-Latin should be Russian as
>>>> well. (OK, at least according to the informal practice some Slavic
>>>> libraries are using, based roughly on CJK.) So if we as a group 
>>>> want to
>>>> characterize the example Joanna found as "wrong," we don't have to 
>>>> account
>>>> for it except to explain to people how not to make that mistake.
>>>>
>>>> There is a whole other can of worms about which form of the name to 
>>>> choose
>>>> as the established one. And for the former USSR it can be hard, since
>>>> Russian no longer dominates in all the republics as it once did. I 
>>>> don't
>>>> want to talk about that, though, that's NACO and AACR2 and I think 
>>>> beyond
>>>> our scope here.
>>>>
>>>> BUT, it does bring up, what is the purpose of the non-Latin parallel
>>>> fields in the bibs? I think I agree with Joanna that the place for
>>>> alternate non-Latin headings (like a correctly formulated Ukrainian 
>>>> form)
>>>> would be in the authority record. But we don't yet have a policy for
>>>> non-Latin cross-references in authority records. And PCC (LC?) 
>>>> didn't want
>>>> to designate a preferred non-Latin form (which would have been the 
>>>> obvious
>>>> candidate as the required parallel field to headings in bibs, had it
>>>> existed).
>>>>
>>>> I think mismatches happen more frequently with HAPY languages than
>>>> Cyrillic actually, where catalogers will provide the non-Latin form 
>>>> found
>>>> on the piece as a parallel access field, even if it doesn't match the
>>>> established romanized heading. Maybe someone can speak to that 
>>>> practice.
>>>>
>>>> ************
>>>> 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, 8 May 2009, Avetyan, Nora wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Has Golovakha, Evgenii? Ivanovich written anything in Russian? I 
>>>>> think the rule calls for establishing the name in the language of 
>>>>> the book
>>>>> that is being cataloged. I encounter the same problem with 
>>>>> Armenian books, because during Soviet era they had to write works 
>>>>> (especially
>>>>> the scholarly works) in Russian to be published and to be read by 
>>>>> more people. I have many Armenian authors with Russian 
>>>>> transliteration
>>>>> in 1xx and 4xx in Armenian form, even though majority of their 
>>>>> works are in Armenian.
>>>>>
>>>>> I just had a thought, I am not sure.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Joanna Dyla [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 12:13 PM
>>>>> To: Avetyan, Nora
>>>>> Cc: Fletcher, Peter; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; 
>>>>> Julie Su; [log in to unmask]; Miller, Caroline;
>>>>> [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; 
>>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Subject: Re: PCC Non Latin task force new member; timeline; update
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been having many of the same observations and concerns that 
>>>>> everyone else who just spoke.  But then, I come across a 
>>>>> bibliographic
>>>>> records with parallel fields that raise so may questions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please check the following OCLC record no: 39812309, Suspil?stvo, 
>>>>> shcho transformui?e?t?si?a? : $b dosvid sot?s?iolohichnoho 
>>>>> monitorynhu v Ukrai?ni / $c
>>>>> I?E?vhen Holovakha.
>>>>> This title is in Ukrainian (apologies to those of you who do not 
>>>>> work with Cyrillic languages) and the record has parallel Cyrillic 
>>>>> fields
>>>>> added.  However, there is a problem with the parallel 1xx.  This 
>>>>> author's name has been established in Russian (that also, like 
>>>>> Ukrainian,
>>>>> uses Cyrillic script) and the transliterated name in 1xx is in 
>>>>> Russian per n79118651, ARN 350318.  Information transcribed in 
>>>>> other fields
>>>>> in this record reflects the language of this item, which is 
>>>>> Ukrainian.  So, while other parallel fields are given correctly in 
>>>>> the
>>>>> original language and script: Ukrainian/Cyrillic, the parallel 1xx 
>>>>> heading has been wrongly "de-transliterated" into Ukrainian, even
>>>>> though it is established and correctly given in 1xx in Russian. I 
>>>>> hope that you can see on the OCLC record what I am trying to 
>>>>> describe.
>>>>> The form of the name in the parallel 1xx is "double" wrong: it is 
>>>>> wrong as a Cyrillic equivalent of the transliterated Russian form 
>>>>> in 1xx
>>>>> (such form does not exist in any language) and also incorrect as 
>>>>> an original Ukrainian name (see the usage in 245 $c).
>>>>>
>>>>> This is only one example but this problem is frequent enough not 
>>>>> to be ignored. Such records in Latin transliteration would also not
>>>>> benefit from a programmatic (or by using a macro) 
>>>>> de-transliteration.  It would be a real challenge to come up and 
>>>>> agree on a solution to
>>>>> handle such situations should we recommend adding parallel fields 
>>>>> in bibliographic records for headings under authority control.  In 
>>>>> the
>>>>> above example, by adding a 4xx Cyrillic reference to the NAR, we 
>>>>> would have recorded the usage in Ukrainian we found on the piece 
>>>>> in hand
>>>>> and facilitate discovery for the users searching in 
>>>>> Ukrainian/Cyrillic.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Have a great weekend, everyone!
>>>>> --Joanna
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>>
>>>>> Joanna K. Dyla
>>>>>
>>>>> Head, Metadata Development Unit
>>>>>
>>>>> Metadata Department
>>>>>
>>>>> Stanford University Libraries
>>>>>
>>>>> 650-723-2529
>>>>>
>>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Avetyan, Nora wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the problem is that there are many records that do not 
>>>>> have original scripts alongside with the transliterated form in 
>>>>> the bib.
>>>>> records, thus OCLC auto-supply won?t be able to ?supply? the 
>>>>> original script in the authority records. Also, in some cases, 
>>>>> several ?ways? of
>>>>> transliteration forms are used, based on a person?s passionate 
>>>>> conviction, and that creates difficulty to generate original 
>>>>> scripts from the
>>>>> bib. records. So, I think Peter your concerns are still valid.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nora
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Fletcher, Peter
>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 10:26 AM
>>>>> To: 'Joanna Dyla'
>>>>> Cc: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; Julie Su; 
>>>>> [log in to unmask]; Miller, Caroline; [log in to unmask];
>>>>> [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; Avetyan, Nora; [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Subject: RE: PCC Non Latin task force new member; timeline; update
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Joanna, I think the discussion is within the scope, but I think we 
>>>>> still need to add parallel fields to access points in bibliographic
>>>>> records for the foreseeable future since many authority records 
>>>>> headings don?t have non-Latin 4xx. I?m certainly open to 
>>>>> discussing this
>>>>> topic; perhaps I my concerns aren?t particularly valid now with 
>>>>> the OCLC auto-supply of authority record 4xx (which were extracted 
>>>>> from
>>>>> bibliographic record equivalent fields).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Joanna Dyla [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 1:34 PM
>>>>> To: Fletcher, Peter
>>>>> Cc: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; Julie Su; 
>>>>> [log in to unmask]; Miller, Caroline; [log in to unmask];
>>>>> [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; Avetyan, Nora; [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Subject: Re: PCC Non Latin task force new member; timeline; update
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It may be a bit too early to ask specific questions but I will be 
>>>>> on vacation from May 10th until May 27th (not sure about Internet
>>>>> access), so let me ask now...
>>>>>
>>>>> My questions are about a choice of fields in bibliographic records 
>>>>> that get parallel non-Latin script data.  When CONSER practice and
>>>>> documentation on creating records with data in non-Latin scripts 
>>>>> was introduced (2001/2003), an option of adding non-Latin script 
>>>>> data to
>>>>> authority records did not exist.  The BIBCO Core Record Standards: 
>>>>> 9. Guidelines for Multiple Character Sets document states: 
>>>>> "Whether the
>>>>> non-Latin equivalents of headings are added as references to the 
>>>>> authority record or not, they may be supplied in bibliographic 
>>>>> records."
>>>>> Do we really need to continue adding non-Latin parallel controlled 
>>>>> fields in bib records as well as in references on name authority
>>>>> records (i.e., 4XX fields)?  Could we now rely on authority 
>>>>> records with non-Latin references instead of on parallel control 
>>>>> fields in
>>>>> bibliographic records for discovery through non-Latin script 
>>>>> searching?  Is this topic/discussion within the scope of this TF?
>>>>>
>>>>> --Joanna
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>>
>>>>> Joanna K. Dyla
>>>>>
>>>>> Head, Metadata Development Unit
>>>>>
>>>>> Metadata Department
>>>>>
>>>>> Stanford University Libraries
>>>>>
>>>>> 650-723-2529
>>>>>
>>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Fletcher, Peter wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> PCC non-Latin task force,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We have a new member of the task force: Benjamin Abrahamse
>>>>>
>>>>> Head, Serials Cataloging Section
>>>>>
>>>>> Cataloging and Metadata Services
>>>>>
>>>>> MIT Libraries
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> His area of expertise is Hebrew and Arabic, so along with Nora 
>>>>> Avetyan (Persian) I think we have almost all languages 
>>>>> represented. I think
>>>>> we are   light on Greek experience, but Robert mentioned that he 
>>>>> has had some experience with Greek. I tend to think that issues 
>>>>> that come
>>>>> up with that language would be similar to those that might arise 
>>>>> with Cyrillic since the two are closely related.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, if you all agree, I think we could stick with the current 
>>>>> timeline: draft report by ALA Annual; final report by December. 
>>>>> The draft
>>>>> report could simply be a progress report with some kind of draft 
>>>>> document (even incomplete if necessary), and I assume I would just be
>>>>> reporting to CONCER/BIBCO at Large during ALA Annual, with some 
>>>>> kind of written report I would give to Joan Schuitema, chair of 
>>>>> SCS at
>>>>> that time. Giving this draft report at this time is good in case 
>>>>> the membership thinks we should alter our approach or not, so we 
>>>>> don?t
>>>>> waste too much time going in a wrong direction.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently I am trying to go through the current CEG appendices 
>>>>> (and the short PCC document) to see how we might 
>>>>> consolidate/generalize
>>>>> certain instructions so they could apply to more than one script 
>>>>> (as we already discussed), and to try to grasp how far we can go with
>>>>> that generalization before getting into specific script/language 
>>>>> instruction. I should be able to come up with some kind of 
>>>>> introductory
>>>>> draft (not the whole thing! Just the first part?) before too long 
>>>>> that we can discuss, pull apart, add other ideas ? . This should 
>>>>> be a good
>>>>> starting point.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me know if you have any ideas about this approach.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best, Peter
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter Fletcher
>>>>>
>>>>> Cyrillic Catalog Librarian and Metadata Specialist
>>>>>
>>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>>
>>>>> Office: (310) 206-3927
>>>>>
>>>>> Fax: (310) 794-9357
>>>>>
>>>>> Cataloging & Metadata Center
>>>>>
>>>>> 11020 Kinross Avenue
>>>>>
>>>>> Box 957230
>>>>>
>>>>> Los Angeles, CA 90095-7230
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>