Revision of Korean Romanization and Word Division Guidelines Progress Report Young Ki Lee Library of Congress.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

RDA Implementation at the Library of Congress (LC) Dr. Barbara B. Tillett Chief, Policy & Standards Division, Library of Congress & Chair, Joint Steering.

Advertisements

North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) Procedures (Note : Titles of Swim lanes change periodically) NAESB Office Triage Subcommittee Executive Subcommittee.

Development of Model Business Practices Process Flows (Note : Titles of Swim lanes change periodically) NAESB Office Triage Subcommittee Executive Subcommittee.

Committee on Korean Materials Council of East Asian Libraries 2005 Annual Meeting Thursday March 31 1:50 p.m. – 3:40 p.m. Hyatt Chicago Regency.

Updates on Descriptive Cataloging of East Asian Material: CJK Examples of AACR2 - Chapter CEAL Conference Committee on Technical Processing Serial.

Starting Planning for the 2010 Policy Key Issues Notes for the TAC Executive Committee April 8, 2009 Phil Hattis, AIAA VP for Public Policy.

WECC TEPPC – March 25, 2010 Proposed Revisions to PCC Regional Planning Document 1 Proposed Revisions to Overview of Policies and Procedures for Regional.

LINC Directors Group April 17, 2003 Lincoln Trail Libraries System.

Regional Information Meeting and Workshop related to the RRC-06 for the administrations of the African countries Dakar, Senegal, April 2005 Results.

One Year After RDA Implementation Committee on East Asian Libraries March 2014 Jessalyn Zoom LC Cooperative and Instructional Programs Division.

Academic Promotion at the University of Warwick

1. 2 Anyone can suggest an idea for a law. Only Members of Congress can introduce a proposed law to the House or Senate. 3.

Rossmore Secondary Plan Presentation to Council July 16, 2014.

Stakeholder Involvement Program to Establish New and Better Hazardous Waste Treatment Facilities in WA 3c web: telephone: (08)

So, What Happens Now? The Summary and Implementation Reports and Implementation of Initiatives and Outcomes.

School of Medicine –Promotions and Tenure Jane F. Reckelhoff, PhD Chair, SOM Appointments, Promotion and Tenure Committee Patrick O. Smith, PhD, ABPP Associate.

THE STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT PROCESS STEP 1 PUBLIC AND COMMITTEE PROPOSAL STAGE PUBLIC AND COMMITTEE PROPOSAL CLOSING DATE FIRST TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING.

THE EVALUATION PROCESS FOR RFP’S: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ARCHITECTURAL RFP AND A GENERAL SERVICE RFP TREENA BRADLEY, ROOSEVELT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT.

Physical Security CIP NERC Standing Committees December 9-10, 2014.

Final Report on Improvements to the RAA Steve Metalitz 5 December 2010.

Library of Congress Report to Committee on Technical Processing CEAL Young Ki Lee Regional and Cooperative Cataloging Division Library of Congress.

LC Update to the Authority Control Interest Group Janis L. Young Policy and Standards Division Library of Congress 2011 ALA Annual Conference.

Reject Appeal SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG Approve EVALUATION – FALL CONTINUE IMPLEMENTATION & SCHEDULING PLAN REVISION DIVISION MANAGEMENT.

IEEE /r3 Submission September 2008 John Notor, Cadence Design Systems, Inc.Slide 1 IEEE IMT-Advanced Review Process Date:

Paragraph 81 Project. 2RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY Background FERC March 15, 2012 Order regarding the Find, Fix, Track and Report (FFT) process  Paragraph.

What is an IPRC? Regulation 181/98 of Education Act

Exit Capacity Substitution and Revision Transmission Workstream meeting, 3 rd December 2009.

DICOM to ISO-DICOM Report to joint ISO TC215/WG2 – DICOM WG10 meeting January 24, 2004, San Diego.

NCIP Nanomaterial Data Curation Initiative Update & path forward Christine Ogilvie Hendren 5/29/2014.

Due Process – ISSAIs and INTOSAI GOVs Roberto José Domínguez Moro Superior Audit Office of Mexico INTOSAI Working Group on Public Debt June 14, 2010.

Questions and Answers. Reminders  CV – limited to 25 pages  Tab 5 – limited to 25 pages  Plus, samples of work (maximum of 5 samples; each sample must.

APA CONTRACTS TO POST-2017 ALLOTTEES July 24 - Letter to all Allottees Inviting Comment August 10 - Allottee Response August 21 - Workshop August 28 –

ALA-LC Romanization Tables Korean 2009 Edition March 2009.

1 User Pays Non-Code Services – Contract Change Process Summary A Contract Change Proposal (CCP) is submitted. The Contract Change Register (CCR) is updated.

A Year in the Life Of a State Data Coordinator December, 2013.

IEEE /r5 Submission November 2008 John Notor, Cadence Design Systems, Inc.Slide 1 IEEE IMT-Advanced Review Process Date:

NATA Foundation General Grants Program Process RC Chair identifies 3 RC members to review Pre-Proposal & information is sent for review (within 2 weeks.

Overview: Code Modification Process Summary. PROPONENT Step 1 - Proponent has a code change in mind MODIFICATION (Mod) Step 2 - Proponent enters the mod.

Recommendation of Texas Test Plan Team to RMS

Remarks on the Tenure and Promotion Process

NATA Foundation General Grants Program Process

Recommendation of Texas Test Plan Team to RMS

Academic Promotion at the University of Warwick

Curriculum Development Updates

FLOWSHEET FOR APPEALS Application for appeal received

Save these dates! October 14, 15 and 16, 2010 ASU Student Union

Implementation Strategy July 2002

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2017 AMENDMENT PROCESS and DOCKET

Research Application Process

Outcome TFCS-11// February Washington DC

FBC Code Development 6th Edition (2017).

The School Point of View

CAP190: Workgroup Report CUSC Modifications Panel, 26th August 2011

September 8, 2016 Request Approval of the Determinations to be Submitted to Rules Review Commission for Subchapter 15A NCAC 02E (Periodic Review of Existing.

Proposed Strategic Planning Process for FY 2013/14 thru FY 2015/16

2016 T&D Conference Technical Co-chairs: Shay Bahramirad, ComEd

Exit Capacity Substitution and Revision

IEEE IMT-Advanced Review Process

IEEE IMT-Advanced Review Process

IEEE IMT-Advanced Review Process

Comments on IMT-Advanced Review Process

Student Administration and Support Programme and Project Timelines

Gas Customer Forum DN Interruption Update - Introduction

IEEE IMT-Advanced Review Process

IEEE P Wireless RANs Date:

Living Donor Committee

Korean McCune-Reischauer Romanization Dictionary

NATA Foundation General Grants Program Process

(Project) SIGN OFF PROCESS MONTH DAY, YEAR

After this meeting… Voting period begins

Presentation transcript:

Revision of Korean Romanization and Word Division Guidelines Progress Report Young Ki Lee Library of Congress

Up to date Sept – LC formed Revision Team Dec – Revision Teams 1 st Draft distributed to LC staff who work with Korean materials Apr – All Korean Staff sessions started July 2005 – LC sent a draft to the Chair of CKM Aug – A review team of 10 formed Oct – Reviewers had meeting in Seoul, Korea during the Workshop for Overseas Librarians Jan – Final recommendation was submitted to LC

Basic Guidelines from LC Management 1.Propose minimal changes to guidelines 2.Propose changes to guidelines with promoting machine conversion 3.Minimize Bibliographic and authority files maintenace

Basic Principles For Revision The Romanization proposal is consistent with the principles set forth in the McCune-Reischauer (MCR) guidelines The Word Division proposal aims to make our practice more fully conform to Standard Korean Word Division practice

Whats Next? 1. Analyze and evaluate findings and comments. Then A) agree to send the proposal forward, B) modify it and then send it forward, C) defer further consideration at this time, or D) not approve the proposal. 2. If the proposal is deferred, notify the party that put the proposal forward, and CEAL, of the decision and the reasons for it. 3. If the proposal is sent forward, publish it in the Cataloging Services Bulletin (CSB) in draft form, and invite comment (with deadline). Post the proposal on the CPSO home page. Send the proposal to the ALA committee on Cataloging: Asian and African Materials (CCAAM), explaining why the proposal is being made, with deadline of two months for comments.

Whats Next? (Continued) 4. After the time for comments has expired, meet to evaluate the comments and the proposal. At that time, A) agree to approve of the proposal, B) modify it and then approve it, C) defer further consideration at this time, or D) not approve the proposal 5. Meet to reconsider deferred proposals one year following the decision to defer, or sooner if appropriate. If the proposal merits further investigation and analysis at that time, proceed to Step 2 above.

Time to Change For Machine Conversion? 1.Modification of MCR? 2.New Government System? 3.New TRANSLITERATION system for library environment?