Re: AJL RAS CatCom agenda items

[Jasmin Nof]

Thanks Nancy.  I really do think trying to answer all our questions in 
2.5 days is asking a lot of ourselves.  These will need to be ongoing 
conversations, especially the conversation about authority references 
for which AJL should advise and then respond to LC.  I think the best 
use of our time together is to decide who will explore this issues and 
then, via some electronic means, bring suggestions/proposals to the rest 
of the group for feedback.  Otherwise we'll likely end up spending a 
dis-proportionate amount of time on these 2 subjects alone and not get 
to the other topics on the table (or to the food on the table, for that 
matter :-) ).  Just my penny...  Jasmin

Nancy Sack wrote:
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
>
>