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.


Fletcher, Peter wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
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.


-----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;

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.

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;

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
un-Cyrillicize the qualifiers. Still attempting to impose the standard
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,
is no way the "standard" can be implemented, right? So maybe those
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
would suspect it would make certain kinds of implementations a lot

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
some of the "optional" practices optional or mandatory for certain
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
and a given "variant practice".  That is to say some cataloging
(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
a lot of optionality right off the bat without making anyone very
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
preferred practices within their own communities.  We can't make those
decisions for them, but we can recommend that they try.