Question 1: As for this, our intention for the future is to follow the guidelines for constructing nonroman references in the authority file also when we're creating parallel access fields in bibliographic records. I think--we haven't really discussed this. We're hoping desperately that OCLC will agree soon that we don't HAVE to create parallel access fields in bibliographic records much longer.
Question 2: So far I haven't heard complaints about this, so we haven't responded to them. Of course even if we change our practice in making bibliographic access points, the huge body of already-created records will have varying practices, and there will certainly be no time to "correct" them, even on an as-encountered basis. Joan >>> Nancy Sack <s...@hawaii.edu> 6/28/2009 7:09 PM >>> Joan, et al., Thanks for confirming that the RI exception is not meant to exempt nonroman references from the rule that subfields must be entered under catalog-entry forms. But regarding the advisability of continuing that practice, I have two questions: 1. Don't we want the parallel headings we use in bib records to match *something* in their corresponding authority records? 2. Does no one else mind that a search for a term in a nonroman script retrieves a see reference and also a bunch of bib records (filing under the see reference)? If I'm missing something obvious, please let me know. Thanks. Nancy Joan C Biella wrote: > Nancy and others, > > Of course I work at LC and you're not going to hear anything but party line > from me--I strongly agree that variants of the name of a body should appear > in the NAR for the body, variants for the name of a sub-body should appear in > the NAR for the sub-body, and so on. And this does result in mixing roman > and nonroman in the reference. > > This situation is (in my opinion) an inevitable development of the rule Nancy > cites, that in references containing such subfields, the $a subfield should > be in catalog-entry form--and all catalog-entry forms are roman. > > What I don't understand is the attraction of doing otherwise. Why should > these references be constructed so that all, or anyway more than just the > last, subfields are not in catalog entry form? The nonroman references for > all the bodies will appear in the authority file either way. > > Is it an esthetic desire that roman and nonroman shouldn't appear in the same > reference? > Joan > > >>>> Nancy Sack <s...@hawaii.edu> 06/26/09 5:48 PM >>> >>>> > Aloha, safranim ve-safraniyot, > > Could I ask you to weigh in on a debate that has been raging in our > department for the past few days? Apparently there are differences of > opinion regarding the nonroman exception in RI 26.1: Until practices > related to the form and style of nonroman script references have been > established, it is not necessary to construct nonroman references in the > same form as the heading. Some catalogers believe that this exception > applies to the restriction on making references only at the level of the > heading established, and are giving complete original-script references > for corporate body-subordinate body strings and author-title strings. Do > you understand the exception to exempt nonroman references from the > guidelines that appear, for example, on the NACO corporate body FAQ ( > http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/naco/corpfaq.html ): > > This LC/PCC policy is a parameter for contribution of authority records > to which all NACO participants agree. Once a heading is established it > is a violation of this policy to make cross references from unauthorized > forms of the elements in a hierarchical string. The foreign language or > variant form of a parent body is included as a cross reference only on > the NAR for the parent. Each additional subordinate unit must then use > the established forms of the heading even though the subordinate unit > variant can be given in the foreign language. LCRI 26.1 Forms of > References statement: "... construct a reference in the same form in > which it would be constructed if chosen as the heading ..." is > interpreted by LC/PCC policy to reinforce the principle of not creating > a cross-reference for a subordinate unit with unauthorized forms of the > parent units. > > FWIW, I'm convinced that it's better not to mix romanizations and > original scripts but I've assumed that the current guidelines demand > that we do just that. > > Thanks. > > Nancy > >
