Thanks Keiko, it is good to see this report and make now of some of their recommendations, see what they were thinking back then. It can frame some of the things we have brought up in our discussion.
These link to the same thing, I think. This report must have contributed to the “Core” document which SCS revised about a year ago, Guidelines for Multiple Character Sets, (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/coreintro.html#9) to bring it up-to-date with some current developments. As you know we are now incorporating this and other PCC documentation.
Hi Peter and all,
Sorry for replying this late stage of Peter's drafting the preliminary report. It was nice talking to some of you in the group in Chicago. Especially I thought it was interesting discussion regarding the point Peter mentioned at the end of the below message.
Related to that, do you think we could get more background information about "Non-Roman core record task group final report" (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/archive/jackphy.html), which is one of the documents we need to review according to our charge (I only have a draft charge dated on 7/3/2009) and I pointed out briefly at the meeting? It is rather brief and seems published at the PCC website in January 2008 (but I also found it looks like almost entirely the same content of 1994 version in the OCLC CJK Users Group website: http://oclccjk.lib.uci.edu/corercd.htm???). I am not much familiar with this one and I would like to know more although if it was really originally done in 1994, the environment of our PCC setting might be a bit different now an them.
Hi all, I assume everyone who went had an uneventful trip back home from Chicago.
Just to let you know I am updating our document based on the comments on the document (Google docs) and according to our work during our short meeting at ALA. We need to get a preliminary draft done by the end of next week to submit to standards committee. It will be incomplete, with the special languages section 3 listed as “[under development]”, and the parts where examples are needed, “[needs example]”, just like parts of the RDA drafts some of were looking at months ago.
I’ll also write a brief report of some of the concerns that arose during our discussion, especially those dealing with our disagreement on the matter of whether or not non-Latin script belongs in access points in bib records or rather in authority record references.
Cyrillic Catalog Librarian and Metadata Specialist
Office: (310) 206-3927
Fax: (310) 794-9357
UCLA Cataloging & Metadata Center
11020 Kinross Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90095-7230