Quoting Brunella Longo <brunella.lo...@yahoo.com>:
I would say that:
- Abbreviations are wellcome if they are universally accepted i.e.
[id est ;)] if they facilitate cross domain comprehension and are
well documented internationally. There is no point in writing
centimetres; But I must admit I have some doubts; I have recently
met a guy who [did not know] Kg is for kilogram! Anyway, if there is
an abbreviation for a word in a common dictionary that is likely to
be accepted also in catalogs;
- abbreviations belonging to the special language of just one
community are deprecated and should be avoided at all costs.
The dictum that context imparts meaning is, I think, relevant here.
In the context of an ISBD bibliographic record, printed or in a screen
display, standard abbreviations have a context; nowadays, even so,
possibly not all who see them in that context will understand them.
In contemporary bibliographic displays, the context is often
fractured. Therefore the meaning may be obscured.
When we prepare to dismantle bibliographic data and mash elements into
hitherto unseen combinations, we can assume no particular context,
Therefore it seems to me that abbreviations no longer have a place in
our workflows.
On the instance you cite of "i.e," I would demur: I used quite often
notice confusions (especially between i.e. and e.g.) among people I
would otherwise regard as skilled in reading and writing. Therefore I
would not except them either.
Hal Cain
Melbourne, Australia
hec...@dml.vic.edu.au
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
