Print

Print


I am also just catching up with the latest draft and the comments...

Here is is one example that needs to be corrected:

2.3. Descriptive fields  (MA) (245, 246, 247, 250, 260, 490, 740 ) 
Examples:
[p. 4]

245 10 ǂa Грузинские документы IX-XV вв.
245 10 ǂa Gruzinskie dokumenty IX-XV vv. 
246 13 ǂa Грузинские документы девятого-пятнадцатого вв.
246 13 ǂa Gruzinskie dokumenty devi︠a︡togo-pi︠a︡tnadt︠s︡ogo vv.
[two letters missing in "pi︠a︡tnadt︠s︡atogo"]

SHOULD BE:

245 ...
245 ...
246 ...
246 13 ǂa Gruzinskie dokumenty devi︠a︡togo-pi︠a︡tnadt︠s︡atogo vv.

--Joanna

David W Reser wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
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

    

-- 
Joanna K. Dyla
Head, Metadata Development Unit
Metadata Department
Stanford University Libraries
650-723-2529
[log in to unmask]