[DCRM-L] FW: [RDA-L] [UNICODE-M] Roman Numerals

[John Attig]

I think that the special Roman numeral codes are for specialized 
applications and would not be used by Libraries.  The suggestion that 
the rules themselves should state that you should record Roman 
numerals as alphabetical characters goes beyond the sort of issues 
that are normally covered in cataloging rules; it seems to me more 
appropriate in the MARC 21 Specifications.

Bottom line: This should not affect us at all.

         John

At 04:58 PM 12/15/2006, Deborah J. Leslie wrote:
>I am forwarding this message as it appeared on RDA-L, which itself was
>forwarded MARC, and that forwarded apparently from UNICODE-M. I have no
>idea what the ramifications for rare materials cataloging might be if
>this is implemented. Perhaps John Attig or someone else better versed in
>unicode can comment. --DJL
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
>[mailto:RDA-L at INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
>Sent: Thursday, 14 December, 2006 21:53
>To: RDA-L at INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
>Subject: Re: [RDA-L] [UNICODE-M] Roman Numerals (fwd)
>
>
>This appeared on the MARC list, but since it included a recommendation
>for
>RDA, I thought I'd forward it here.   --Adam Schiff
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:42:24 -0500
>From: "[ISO-8859-1] Joan Aliprand" <jaliprand at POBOX.COM>
>Reply-To: UNICODE-MARC Discussion List <UNICODE-MARC at loc.gov>
>To: UNICODE-MARC at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV
>Subject: Re: [UNICODE-M] Roman Numerals
>
> From a practical point of view, it is easier to input these Roman
>numbers
>using letters from the regular keyboard than to invoke an alternate
>input
>method to obtain the Roman numerals in the Number Forms block.
>(Furthermore,
>most people will not know that the Roman numerals in the Number Forms
>block
>exist.)
>
> >I see no advantage to having two ways to encode roman
> >numerals though and would suggest that the character range cited above
>be
> >excluded from MARC records.
>
>I think the issue of transcription of Roman numerals relates to
>cataloging
>rules rather than imposing limitations on the MARC 21 repertoire.
>Vendors do
>not always implement what MARC 21 specifies.
>
>AACR2 includes rules on the transcription of Roman numerals, or
>substitution
>of Western-style Arabic numbers. Perhaps these rules could be expanded
>in
>RDA to specify (a) transcription of a Roman numeral as one or more
>alphabetic letters rather than as a single combination form, and (b) to
>provide explicit alphabetic letter substitutions for Roman numbers that
>cannot be transcribed directly; for example: U+2180 ROMAN NUMERAL ONE
>THOUSAND CD.
>
> > Having two ways to encode some text strings will, I suspect,
> >complicate authority control matching for names with diacritics but
>display
> >happens more often.
>
>The issue of string comparison is a critical aspect of authority
>control,
>and so library processes in general. Those responsible need a thorough
>understanding of Unicode, particularly canonical and compatibility
>equivalences, normalization, casing, and character folding.
>
>-- Joan Aliprand