Print

Print


Ben,

I couldn't agree more.

--Joanna

Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:
> I think we can all agree that "just" documenting practice was no small feat.  But if our charge was indeed to come up with a standard, then we should have a standard that makes sense.  Which (to me at least) means we should push for non-Latin variants of name headings to be added to authority files, along with all of other variant forms.
>
> --Ben
> ________________________________________
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of D. Brooking [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 5:36 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.
>>
>>     

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