Print

Print


And, once that is done, systems that can make intelligent use of that 
preferred form.  Until then, we need to provide guidelines that will be 
useful for cataloging in current and near-term future systems, which is 
what we've tried to do.  In that context, I think what we came up with 
makes sense enough.

Robert.

Fletcher, Peter wrote:
> We did add language strengthening the recommendation that PCC catalogers
> add the non-Latin variants to authority records in the guidelines. What
> will really solve the problems is arriving at a preferred form of the
> name, which we recommend PCC look into.
>
> Peter 
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
> Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 3:06 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Post PCC OpCo addendum to report;
> PCCNonLatinGuidelinesReportApr29.doc
>
> 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.
>>
>>     
>
>