Re: AJL RAS CatCom agenda items

[Nancy Sack]

Well, yes, any or all of the fields you mentioned. I'm really just trying to 
ensure that the issues get discussed and that the pros and cons of various 
practices get debated. I think the CatCom is the appropriate venue for that 
activity and I wanted to be sure it was on the agenda. Maybe the transcription 
of Hebrew numbers is a place we could start? Maybe we could also discuss 
(briefly) how LC's decision on series has affected our work?

Face-to-face discussions can be very productive, but a lot of this 
back-and-forth could be conducted throughout the year on the wiki or via e-mail 
or some 21st-century communication system that I don't use. I think Jasmin's 
suggestion of task forces assigned to investigate different angles is a good 
one.
 
Just my $0.02.
 
Nancy 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Joan C Biella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, June 19, 2008 4:34 am
Subject: Re: AJL RAS CatCom agenda items
To: heb-naco@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu

> 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
> 
>