Re: AJL RAS CatCom agenda items

[Jasmin Nof]

I've added this subject to the agenda, along with a question of whether 
we'd like to establish a task force to examine these issues and propose 
best practices documentation.  (I doubt we'll answer all these questions 
in the cat com mtg, so I figure setting up a task force would at least 
be the next step to move us forward...)  Nancy would you like to lead 
the topic?

Joan C Biella wrote:
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