Joan, et al.,
Thanks for confirming that the RI exception is not meant to exempt
nonroman references from the rule that subfields must be entered under
catalog-entry forms. But regarding the advisability of continuing that
practice, I have two questions:
1. Don't we want the parallel headings we use in bib records to match
*something* in their corresponding authority records?
2. Does no one else mind that a search for a term in a nonroman script
retrieves a see reference and also a bunch of bib records (filing under
the see reference)?
If I'm missing something obvious, please let me know.
Thanks.
Nancy
Joan C Biella wrote:
Nancy and others,
Of course I work at LC and you're not going to hear anything but party line
from me--I strongly agree that variants of the name of a body should appear in
the NAR for the body, variants for the name of a sub-body should appear in the
NAR for the sub-body, and so on. And this does result in mixing roman and
nonroman in the reference.
This situation is (in my opinion) an inevitable development of the rule Nancy
cites, that in references containing such subfields, the $a subfield should be
in catalog-entry form--and all catalog-entry forms are roman.
What I don't understand is the attraction of doing otherwise. Why should these
references be constructed so that all, or anyway more than just the last,
subfields are not in catalog entry form? The nonroman references for all the
bodies will appear in the authority file either way.
Is it an esthetic desire that roman and nonroman shouldn't appear in the same
reference?
Joan
Nancy Sack <s...@hawaii.edu> 06/26/09 5:48 PM >>>
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
