The set of changes I made in that document was meant to be limited to cosmetic and uncontroversial ones, so it definitely doesn't reflect everything we discussed last week! On your point 4, non-Latin references are not required in authority records, and neither are non-Latin headings in bib. records, but could we require a cataloger exercising the option to enter a non-Latin heading in a bib. record to also add it to the corresponding authority record? Maybe not, but I'll just ask. Robert. David W Reser wrote: > Boy, I picked the wrong Friday to be off! Just catching up with the many messages-- rather than try to respond to each, I'll respond to Robert's revision that was attached to this message and throw in a few additional things. > > First, I agree with all of Robert's changes. > > 1. Second paragraph, last sentence refers to "MARC formats" but I think what was meant was MARC record types (formats at this point would mean bibliographic, authority, holdings). > > 2. Section 2, general guidelines: Please change the link to the ALA-LC romanization tables to: > > http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.standards/docs.roman > (we assigned a persistent URL to publish in RDA and other places, particularly useful since it is not known how long the "cpso" domain will last). > > 3. Section 2.3.1: Example for Xun yi cao de chun tian [I think there was an earlier comment to delete the example, to which I would concur-- not really clear what is being illustrated here] > > 4. Section 2.5, first paragraph, last sentence. I would agree with strengthening the statement somewhat (It is *strongly* recommended ...), but since non-Latin variants are optional in NACO, you can't really say "should" as some have suggested in other messages. > > Thanks for all the hard work! > > Dave > > >>>> Robert Rendall <[log in to unmask]> 3/22/2010 1:42 PM >>> >>>> > Attached is a copy of the original Word document (not reflecting any > more recent changes Peter has made) with tracked editing changes > (spaces, capitalization, punctuation, indenting "not" examples, some > wording) to the opening text, the Introduction, and sections 1, 2, 2.1, > 2.3, 2.3.1, 2.4, 2.5, 2.5.2.2, 3.2.3, and 3.3.1. > > Indenting the "not" examples doesn't seem to show up in tracked changes > but I think it sets them off better. > > Robert. > > Fletcher, Peter wrote: > >> All, also, please, when you send me (or to the list) a revised, track >> changes of the document, name it with your name, for example, >> Non-LatinRobertMarch19, or something like that so I can keep track. >> >> >> >> thanks, Peter >> >> > >