Concerning the standard catalog abbreviations, I wish that people would
stop thinking of them as "Latin abbreviations" and instead, as "data
that has been entered consistently" in our records over many, many
years. Because it has been, and consequently, it is a very valuable
commodity. Thinking in this way turns [s.l.], [s.n.], [et al.] and the
others from "abbreviations" into "computer codes". Once this idea is
accepted, there is nothing to stop us from displaying those "codes"
however we wish.
The moment we stop entering this information consistently, the
complexity raises, and the information loses a lot of its value, most
probably a lot. But if we continue current practices consistently,
[s.l.] could be portrayed in any library catalog, in any way people
want. Several catalogs allow the searcher to choose the interface
language, English or German or Italian, etc. and when people choose
their language, the "abbreviations/catalog codes" could change too.
--
James L. Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
