Joan C Biella
Thu, 19 Jun 2008 07:34:52 -0700
Nancy, could you make your suggestion a little more specific? Do you mean standardization in the "transcription" fields (245, 246, 250, 260, 4XX) rather than in access points? Are you thinking of any field in particular (e.g., 260)? Joan >>> Nancy Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 06/18/08 8:01 PM >>> Even if the form of references in authority records won't be decided for months or years to come, couldn't we discuss the standardization of descriptive fields, if not headings themselves, in bibliographic records? There's lots of room for improvement there too... --NS Joan C Biella wrote: > Just one thought about this: it's a problem with MANY ramifications, some of > which we'll discuss in the LC Update. It's because it's so complex that LC > is allowing a six-month period for "testing" the system, at the end of which > some "best practices" will be enshrined in rules and RIs. An appropriate > thing for us to talk about in the Cataloging Committee, perhaps, would be a > time-table for us to divide up the six months, with regular reports to one > another on how it's going and what we're starting to think the "best > practices" for Hebrew headings will be. > > Joan