Nonroman refs in authority records

[Nancy Sack]

Aloha, safranim ve-safraniyot,

Could I ask you to weigh in on a debate that has been raging in our 
department for the past few days? Apparently there are differences of 
opinion regarding the nonroman exception in RI 26.1: Until practices 
related to the form and style of nonroman script references have been 
established, it is not necessary to construct nonroman references in the 
same form as the heading. Some catalogers believe that this exception 
applies to the restriction on making references only at the level of the 
heading established, and are giving complete original-script references 
for corporate body-subordinate body strings and author-title strings. Do 
you understand the exception to exempt nonroman references from the 
guidelines that appear, for example, on the NACO corporate body FAQ ( 
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/naco/corpfaq.html ):

This LC/PCC policy is a parameter for contribution of authority records 
to which all NACO participants agree. Once a heading is established it 
is a violation of this policy to make cross references from unauthorized 
forms of the elements in a hierarchical string. The foreign language or 
variant form of a parent body is included as a cross reference only on 
the NAR for the parent. Each additional subordinate unit must then use 
the established forms of the heading even though the subordinate unit 
variant can be given in the foreign language. LCRI 26.1 Forms of 
References statement: "... construct a reference in the same form in 
which it would be constructed if chosen as the heading ..." is 
interpreted by LC/PCC policy to reinforce the principle of not creating 
a cross-reference for a subordinate unit with unauthorized forms of the 
parent units.

FWIW, I'm convinced that it's better not to mix romanizations and 
original scripts but I've assumed that the current guidelines demand 
that we do just that.

Thanks.

Nancy