The RDA 18.3 core element for principal or first-named creator is still essential for many library operations, from cutters on spine labels, to default receipt or small label printing, to discovery layer brief displays which can only display a small number of fields. The authorized access point for the work is recycled for other contexts (such as work headings treated as subjects), so there may always be a need to reference back to a resource and have the principal or first-named creator identified.
The 100 field then has a double purpose that should still be reflected in a new encoding environment: 1. A creator of a work, or other associated with a work; possible one of many creators or others associated with a work 2. A core element chosen because it would also appear as the first element in the authorized access point for the work What is handled awkwardly in MARC is the possibility that the Person is both a Creator and a Contributor (having a relationship to the work and to the expression). In the example from the RDA-MARC examples in the RDA Toolkit 100 1_ $a Porter, Kalan, $e composer, $e singer The "composer" is a relationship designator to the work. The "singer" is a relationship designator to the expression. http://www.rdatoolkit.org/sites/default/files/6jsc_rda_complete_examples_bibliographic_jul0312_rev.pdf In the RDA example, Kalan Porter is listed twice: Work Creator: Porter, Kalan Designator: composer Expression Contributor: Porter, Kalan Designator: singer But as the sole creator, "Porter, Kalan" also forms the first element in the authorized access point for the work (aka main entry): Authorized Access Point for the Work: Porter, Kalan. 219 days. In MARC, one could never have: 100 1_ $a Porter, Kalan, $e singer (an expression relationship cannot fit into 100 because the authorized access point for the work requires a Person related to the Work) But one can have: 100 1_ $a Porter, Kalan, $ecomposer, $e singer (multiple relationships and functions for the name "Porter, Kalan" are compressed in this encoding) But this is more common now: 100 1_ $a Porter, Kalan >From which one can only deduce that this element is the first part of the >authorized access point for the work. It's not even clear if the Person is a >"Creator" or an "Other Associated with a Work". Not all Person main entry >headings were Creators in AACR2, and this is carried forward in RDA. There is >that other element in RDA 19.3: "Other Person, Corporate Body or Family >Associated with a Work" that can also be the first element in the authorized >access point for a work. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: July 31, 2012 10:45 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Fw: What Goes into the 1xx Field? I second Marjorie's thanks to Bob for his well-thought-out comments. One possible approach to making decisions about how to encode RDA in MARC could be to look forward to the time that the data that is today in MARC will need to be transferred to an RDA-friendly format. Using this example, RDA makes mention of a "first" creator (as per comments here, not my own reading of RDA) -- if all creators are coded as 7xx, will that adequately retain the order? Given that some systems do not preserve the order of MARC fields, one could conclude that the 1xx fields for creators will be essential to that future transformation. I personally would like to see some mock-ups of RDA "records" that do not use MARC. I have in mind to do a few examples using the RDA elements, but I don't know enough to bring in the interesting cases that would illustrate the full scope of the rules. I was planning on using a few examples from the training materials, and code them (with "code" being used very loosely) in the three RDA scenarios. They'll probably be diagrams like those scenarios. Maybe with something like that before us, those of you who catalog could provide examples that would be better illustrations? kc On 7/30/12 7:00 PM, Marjorie Bloss wrote: My thanks for Bob's and others' thoughtful comments regarding my question about what goes into the 1xx field when using RDA. You support what I've instinctively been doing but was uncertain as to where to turn for the specific RDA instruction. This is where RDA 18.3 is particularly useful. Bob articulated my concerns about disconnects between MARC and RDA with regard to the 1xx and 240 fields so much better than I did. AACR2 and MARC grew up together so it's no big surprise that MARC is so AACR2-centric. MARBI has worked long and hard, bringing MARC in line with RDA but it's a complex process and the pieces don't always fit together cleanly. During the testing of RDA, the Dominican students participating in the test seriously considered not using the 1xx fields at all but 7xx fields instead in order to bring the test records more in line with the concepts found in RDA (that is, not designating any one person, family, or corporate body as the "main entry"). In the end, we didn't do this but it did tickle the backs of our minds. I suspect we are going to have to wait until there is a replacement for MARC before an authorized access point is an authorized access point is an authorized access point and we no longer identify one of them as the main entry. The tickle in the back of my mind about using only the 7xx fields for persons, family, or corporate body access points when creating RDA records is inching closer to the front of my mind, however. Thank you again. Cordially, Marjorie Marjorie E. Bloss, Adjunct Faculty Dominican University Graduate School of Library and Information Science 7900 W. Division St. River Forest, IL 60305 USA 1-773-878-4008 1-773-519-4009 (mobile) ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Maxwell<mailto:robert_maxw...@byu.edu> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 11:31 AM Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Fw: What Goes into the 1xx Field? I agree with the spirit of Marjorie's question, especially the part about keeping one foot on either side of the fence. It is true that we have had no official word on continued use of 1XX fields, by which I mean the MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/ecbdhome.html instructions for 1XX have not been revised to take RDA into account. (There have been plenty of training materials prepared making use of 1XX.) But the MARC formats still refer to 1XX as "main entry" fields, which, as Marjorie points out, is not appropriate in an RDA context. Since AACR2 is still being used in bibliographic records it would be inappropriate to make this designation obsolete, but updating is needed to allow for RDA, if RDA is going to continue to use 1XX fields in MARC bibliographic records. RDA does not have the concept of main entry, but RDA 18.3 still makes a distinction between the "creator having principal responsibility named first" and other creators (e.g. co-authors, etc.). So long as that distinction exists in the guidelines some way is needed to show it in bibliographic records, and it makes logical sense to me that 100, 110, and 111 should be used for the "creator having principal responsibility named first" and 700 for other creators. I recommend that MARC be revised to clarify this. So far so good for 100, 110, and 111. But there is nothing in RDA corresponding to 130, "Main Entry-Uniform Title". An AACR2 uniform title is roughly equivalent to an authorized access point for a work or expression in RDA, representing a work or expression, not a person, family, or corporate body. A work is one of the first group of FRBR entities, "the products of intellectual or artistic endeavor". Persons, families, or corporate bodies are in the second group, "those entities responsible for the intellectual or artistic content (etc.)" of works, expressions, manifestations, or items. In the context of a work, the second group are creators. So, given RDA's distinction between principal and other creators, which I suggest in the previous paragraph could continue to use the 1XX/7XX distinction in MARC, 100 is appropriate for persons and families, and 110, and 111 are appropriate for corporate bodies, when they are the principal creator. But 130 does not correspond to any RDA concept. A work (a FRBR group 1 entity) is not a creator (a FRBR group 2 entity), and so cannot be the principal creator of itself. So in my opinion 130 should not be used in RDA. All authorized access points for works or expressions related to the resource described in the bibliographic record (including the work/expression embodied in the manifestation) should be recorded in 7XX. 130 happens to be where we record in MARC an AACR2 uniform title for a work that does not have a creator expressed within the uniform title, either because the work is anonymous, because (under AACR2) the work had more than three creators, or because the work is an aggregate work (a compilation of works by different creators). X30 corresponds to an authorized access point for a work in RDA based on preferred title alone (i.e., not combined with the authorized access point for a creator, see the guidelines in RDA 6.27). If my argument about 130 being inappropriate in an RDA record makes any sense, then it also applies to the 1XX + 240 combination, which is the main entry in AACR2 for an AACR2 uniform title that does happen to have an expressed creator. 240 cannot exist independently of 1XX, so the two combined really represent a single access point string. In RDA terms, if used, 1XX + 240 would represent the authorized access point for a work or expression, not for a person, family, or corporate body. If we think that 1XX should be used in RDA to represent the principal creator, then, again, a work cannot be the principal creator of itself. So in addition to 130, I also think 1XX/240 should not be used in RDA, but instead all authorized access points for works and expressions related to the resource (including the work/expression embodied in the manifestation) should be coded in 7XX. When we began creating RDA bibliographic records in RDA during the test this was my practice-not to use 130 or 240. About a year later I was informed by the MARC folks at LC (as well as in the context of ECIP cataloging) that this wasn't "correct" and so I have returned to the AACR2 MARC practice, but I am very uncomfortable with it and would welcome having this issue reopened and discussed. I don't think coding an authorized access point for a work in 1XX makes sense in an RDA context. So thank you, Marjorie, for asking the question! Note: on Marjorie's comment about editors in RDA 19.2.1.1, they are not identified there as potential creators. Editors are identified there as potential contributors to an expression. I do not see any justification for recording them as principal creator in an RDA record. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian Genre/Form Authorities Librarian 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Marjorie Bloss Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 8:48 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA> Subject: [RDA-L] Fw: What Goes into the 1xx Field? Dear Colleagues: I would like to raise a question that points out our standing with one foot on the AACR2 side of the fence and the other on the RDA side of the fence. I was wondering how institutions are resolving the issue of what goes into the MARC 100 and 110 fields when using RDA? As you know, AACR2's concept of "main entry" (see AACR2 21.1A-21.1C) and "added entry" (see AACR2 21.29+) do not exist in RDA. The MARC 100 and 110 fields however are main entry-based, reflecting many years of AACR2 practice. When using RDA, how do you plan to determine what goes in the 100 and 110 fields of the MARC record? On what RDA instructions is your decision based? Is it the first name (the creator -- personal, family, or corporate) in a statement of responsibility? What about editors? RDA in 19.2.1.1 identifies editors as potential creators. How might this affect what goes into a 100 field? Mac Elrod has kindly shared his "cheat sheets" with us that address this issue. In them, he seems to support the concept of using the 700 and 710 fields more frequently for "main entry" personal and corporate names while setting the first indicator in the 245 at 0. (Please let me know if I'm misinterpreting this.) Is this what others plan to do? Cordially, Marjorie Marjorie E. Bloss, Adjunct Faculty Dominican UniversityGraduate School of Library and Information Science 7900 W. Division St. River Forest, IL 60305 USA 1-773-878-4008 1-773-519-4009 (mobile) -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net<mailto:kco...@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
