Print

Print


Robert-- I don't think we could require it, but your added thoughts may suggest a few additional words to be added to the effect of you came this far, why not go a little further, e.g., "When PCC catalogers do supply parallel fields for headings in bibliographic records, they are strongly encouraged to replicate this intellectual work as non-Latin variants in authority records as part of NACO-- a simple "cut and paste" will usually make this an efficient process and extend the benefit beyond a single bibliographic record."

OK?
Dave 

>>> Robert Rendall <[log in to unmask]> 3/22/2010 3:25 PM >>>
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
>>
>>     
>
>