 |
 |
This was discussed in May at the BIBCO and CONSER Operations Committees meeting. I raised a number of concerns about all the options and the implications for authority records and particularly for those of us who are using network level catalogs like WorldCat Local. If we as an institution want to follow one option and another PCC library follows a different option, then we get into the position of having to change the form of the non-Latin access points on bibliographic records so that our catalog (OCLC) shows the forms the way we want. This is an untenable situation. I also raised the issue that at some point we are supposed to have guidelines for the "correct" form of non-Latin references in authority records and perhaps even some day we will wish to designate preferred non-Latin forms. In order to have such guidelines, we need to come up with an agreed form for references that we all will follow. I was hoping that the guidelines for bibliographic records would help get us there, but they do not. I am not persuaded by the problems some have in inputting dates and other qualifiers for right to left scripts. These additions can be made, there's no technical issue, at least in OCLC. Yes, it's a little complicated, and can look a bit odd, but it's doable and it's learnable. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax [log in to unmask] http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Hugh Taylor wrote: > I'd like to pick up on John's announcement to the list earlier this month. > > Whilst the Guidelines cover only the creation of *bibliographic* records, > they raise a number of issues which relate equally to authority data. I was > surprised not to have seen these raised - nowhere that I could find, at least > (and apologies if they've been addressed in some forum I didn't think to > check). > > The Guidelines allow three options relating to headings (section 1.5.2). As > such it's impossible, I believe, to consider them without having regard to > the implications for NACO work. > > 1.5.2.1. Parallel fields for headings not established in standard > romanization. Should NACO participants follow this option or not? I would > argue that, in most situations, it's actually closer to NACO conventions > (based on LCRIs) than the "standard" found in 1.5.1. But it's not totally > clear-cut, and that's just my personal interpretation. > > 1.5.2.2. Entering cataloger-created qualifiers in non-Latin script. Even > before the Guidelines were finally accepted I had already noticed differences > of practice in NACO contributions :-( > > 1.5.2.3. Omitting dates and cataloger-created qualifiers (right-to-left > scripts only). For no other reason than my distaste for exceptional practice > that's based around the state of (some) technology at a particular moment in > time - or some users' ability to properly use/apply that technology... - I'd > be more than happy to see this option banned for NACO purposes. But I doubt > the decision is up to me... > > I'm still trying to get my head around the implications of these options in > other situations - e.g., for WorldCat Local customers. But that's not in > scope for this list. > > Right now I'm most interested in knowing where within PCC this discussion is > taking place, or even whether it's taking place. And if it's not, whose job > is it to bring this to the table (and to which table)? > > If I've missed something I should have spotted I apologise in advance. But > I'm holding off the sackcloth and ashes for a little while longer. > > Hugh > -- > Hugh Taylor > Head, Collection Development and Description > Cambridge University Library > West Road, Cambridge CB3 9DR, England > > email: [log in to unmask] fax: +44 (0)1223 333160 > phone: +44 (0)1223 333069 (with voicemail) or > phone: +44 (0)1223 333000 (ask for pager 036) >