Upgrade Storage[MLZ] Abbreviation classification ("language" vs. "jurisdiction")
The current MLZ applies abbreviation based on the jurisdiction of each record.
I understand that there is merit in classifying the abbreviation based on the jurisdiction rather than the language. Other jurisdictions - Great Britain or Canada - that use English have their own convention of abbreviating their institutions. However, for fields other than the institution, my understanding is that you are required to apply a uniform abbreviation regardless of the jurisdiction of the reference. For example, if you are using Bluebook, I believe the same abbreviation rule applies to the title of all court cases regardless of the jurisdiction. Same for journal titles.
It becomes trickier when both the jurisdiction and language of a reference are non-latin, while being cited through the translation/transliteration subfields. In such case, even the "jurisdiction" of the record should have no weight in determining the abbreviation schema.
In a nutshell, it looks like classifying the abbreviations by the "jurisdiction" results in unnecessary replication of the "title-phrase" and "container-part", and even "institutions" in some cases, in the abbreviations file.
I'm not sure if there is a better way to do it, though. My sense is is that there doesn't seem to be a need for classifying title, container-title, author abbreviations by the jurisdiction. The same abbreviation rule should trigger across all jurisdictions as long as they are in the language of the cs:citation -- including the translation/transliteration subfields of foreign references. Only for institutions, there seems to be a need to classify based on the jurisdiction.
I understand that there is merit in classifying the abbreviation based on the jurisdiction rather than the language. Other jurisdictions - Great Britain or Canada - that use English have their own convention of abbreviating their institutions. However, for fields other than the institution, my understanding is that you are required to apply a uniform abbreviation regardless of the jurisdiction of the reference. For example, if you are using Bluebook, I believe the same abbreviation rule applies to the title of all court cases regardless of the jurisdiction. Same for journal titles.
It becomes trickier when both the jurisdiction and language of a reference are non-latin, while being cited through the translation/transliteration subfields. In such case, even the "jurisdiction" of the record should have no weight in determining the abbreviation schema.
In a nutshell, it looks like classifying the abbreviations by the "jurisdiction" results in unnecessary replication of the "title-phrase" and "container-part", and even "institutions" in some cases, in the abbreviations file.
I'm not sure if there is a better way to do it, though. My sense is is that there doesn't seem to be a need for classifying title, container-title, author abbreviations by the jurisdiction. The same abbreviation rule should trigger across all jurisdictions as long as they are in the language of the cs:citation -- including the translation/transliteration subfields of foreign references. Only for institutions, there seems to be a need to classify based on the jurisdiction.