Dear group,
My original concern had to do with getting original script data entered
correctly, such that non-Roman or mixed-script fields, however justified
they may or may not be by the Rules, would nevertheless display correctly
in a Unicode-equipped OPAC. (Thank you to Joan and Caroline for of
I agree with Yossi's comments, and this has been my practice in the Hebrew
fields.
Ruth A. Rin
Hebraica Cataloging Librarian
University of Pennsylvania
Quoting Yossi Galron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
|
|
| I am totally in agreement that in the Hebrew/Yiddish 260
| field we should transcribe the da
Yosi, please bring that list to the R&S
Cataloging Committee meeting if you are attending.
What would we do with chronograms if that is the
only form of data of publication [printing, distribution ... et al.l],
etc.
The best nodel that I have seen is the Bibliography
of the Hebrew which inc
FYI - At the R&S Cataloging Panel on Tuesday 6/21 3:45-5:15 I will be
presenting a paper:
"Anticipating the use of Hebrew Script in the LC/NACO Name Authority File
The MARC 21 Format for Authority Data permits non-Roman scripts to be used
in authority records. LC/NACO Name Authority File (NAF)
I am totally in agreement that in the Hebrew/Yiddish 260
field we should transcribe the date in Hebraic letters and not convert
the date to numerals (i.e. tav-shin-samekh-he and not 765. If there is no
regular date we should continue add in brackets [2004 o 2005]
<>
See for example:
http://libr
Daniel: In a similar vein, I wonder if we
should discuss the possibility of entering the real Hebrew date (i.e., in Hebrew
characters) in the parallel 260, since the Gregorian date and transliterated
(trans-numerated?) Hebrew date have already been captured in the Romanized
field, and since
When I attended ALA in Orlando last year I was at the Authority Control in
the Online Environment Interest Group (ACIG) meeting and heard Barbara
Tillett speak on LC's ultimate plan to add non-roman scripts to the
authority file when they came up on the Unicode version of Voyager. I
believe sh
Daniel. Do you think we might have time to talk about Unicode
formatting of bi-directional fields? Or perhaps this is too systems-specific
for a catalogers meeting? Jerry Anne raised the question today about whether
the parallel 100 field ought to have a [nun] rather than a "b." in sub
