Then you make relator terms (or codes, equally) to be excluded from matching
and sorting, surely?
The MARc mapping systems I'm familiar with (chiefly Horizon) make that not
exactly simple, but straightforward -- so long as the person controlling the
mapping bothers to listen to people who know what's meant!
Hal Cain
Melb ourne, Australia
hegc...@gmail.com
On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 13:48:56 -0800, J. McRee Elrod <m...@slc.bc.ca> wrote:
>Jonathan asked:
>
>>Kind of off topic, but curious why you don't think relator codes are the
>>right thing to do.
>
>Whatever Jim's objections, I can tell you why our clients wish them
>removed:
>
>1) They may create separate hitlists for the same person.
>
>2) If one hitlist, the relation of the person to the first title
>listed may differ from other titles in the hitlist.
>
>3) Although a greater problem with $i before $a, they may complicate
>searching.
>
>4) They create problems (see 1 & 2) for print products such as
>acquisitions lists and subject bibliographies.
>
>5) They do not include all the complexities expressed in 245/$c.
>
>6) Some of the terms in the RDA list are long and cumbersome, taking
>up too much display space.
>
>7) They represent a departure from legacy records; patrons will not
>understand why some entries have them and some don't.
>
>
>
> __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
> ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
