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]