I would suggest a statement along the lines of, “recommended best practice is to confine variant non-Latin headings to authority records whenever possible; or, when that is not possible or conflicts with longstanding practice, to ensure that variants that appear in bibliographic records are also recorded as ‘see’ cross-references in the appropriate authority record.”  Or something to that effect.




Benjamin Abrahamse

Head, Serials Cataloging Section

Cataloging and Metadata Services

MIT Libraries



From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Rendall
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 3:26 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Non Latin document final check


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.


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:
(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!
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,, 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.
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