Print

Print


My edit:

A third option would be for PCC to limit the practice set out in 1.5.2 
(or certain appropriate subsets of it) to right-to-left scripts (Hebrew, 
Arabic, Persian, and Yiddish). This would establish uniformity across a 
large body of PCC cataloging, but allow for flexibility where needed for 
these scripts. [and maybe: For some of these scripts it might be 
appropriate to make these alternative practices mandatory.]  However, 
cataloging in left-to-right scripts might also benefit from the optional 
practices described in 1.5.2., and the loss of those potential benefits 
would have to be weighed against the advantages of uniformity.

Robert.

Fletcher, Peter wrote:
> What about this a third option text (following the addendum as an
> additional paragraph:
>   
>
> "A third option would be for PCC to limit the practice set out in 1.5.2
> (or certain appropriate subsets of it) to HAPY (Hebrew, Arabic, Persian,
> and Yiddish; all right-to-left scripts) communities. This would require
> more conformity across a large body of PCC cataloging, but allow for
> flexibility where needed for these languages. However, other languages
> may also benefit from optional headings practice and there may be no
> firm logical reason to deny them those options."
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of D. Brooking
> Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 2:37 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Post PCC OpCo addendum to report;
> PCCNonLatinGuidelinesReportApr29.doc
>
> I see variation in the Cyrillic community as well. Most of it I think is
>
> caused by the technical capabilities of the transliteration macro. That
> is, if the whole heading is in a Cyrillic language and the macro can
> transform it all, catalogers are reluctant to take the time to go back
> and
> un-Cyrillicize the qualifiers. Still attempting to impose the standard
> in
> the case of Cyrillic (or other left-to-right scripts) would not be
> unreasonable in my opinion.
>
> And at least some HAPY variation is due to right-to-left technical
> difficulties with dates and qualifiers and such. But in those cases,
> there
> is no way the "standard" can be implemented, right? So maybe those
> options
> can be moved down to the special languages section of the guidelines.
>
> The real answer lies in authority records and a way to link non-Latin
> variants to the controlled heading, for both searching and display. It's
>
> not clear to me if a preferred non-Latin form is necessary for this, but
> I
> would suspect it would make certain kinds of implementations a lot
> easier.
>
> Our report is probably a prime piece of evidence of the trouble you get
> into without good authority control mechanisms. PCC Standards should
> use this as an opportunity to push that forward.
>
> And I do think our charge was to come up with a standard, not just
> document current practice. I remember one thing they were hoping for was
>
> to provide consistency across scripts.
>
>
> ************
> Diana Brooking (206) 685-0389
> Cataloging Librarian (206) 685-8782 fax
> Suzzallo Library [log in to unmask]
> University of Washington
> Box 352900
> Seattle WA 98195-2900
>
> On Fri, 14 May 2010, Robert Rendall wrote:
>
>> Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:
>>     
>>> Re: "the amount of optionality in the guidelines could be reduced by
>>>       
> making 
>   
>>> some of the "optional" practices optional or mandatory for certain
>>>       
> script 
>   
>>> groups only", my impression was that we could not do this because
>>>       
> there was 
>   
>>> not a one-to-one correspondence between a given script/cataloging
>>>       
> community 
>   
>>> and a given "variant practice".  That is to say some cataloging
>>>       
> communities 
>   
>>> (particularly HAPY) had more than a single variant in their practice.
>>>       
>
>   
>> Right, but a lot of that variation is pretty much limited to HAPY.  If
>>     
> we say 
>   
>> everyone else is required to follow the "standard" practice, we'll
>>     
> eliminate 
>   
>> a lot of optionality right off the bat without making anyone very
>>     
> unhappy. 
>   
>> The idea of extending HAPY practices to e.g. CJK as an option was
>>     
> basically a 
>   
>> suggested innovation.  We could back off from that.  And then we could
>>     
> see if 
>   
>> PCC catalogers within individual HAPY script groups could agree on
>>     
> single 
>   
>> preferred practices within their own communities.  We can't make those
>>     
>
>   
>> decisions for them, but we can recommend that they try.
>>
>> Robert.
>>
>>     
>
>