As an option for navigating the relationships people have had to creative works, there is the possibility of very user-friendly approaches, as in this IMDB example for the many job types Clint Eastwood has had in relation to films: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000142/
Current library catalogs do not come close in helping users in ways that are now commonly found across the web. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library > -----Original Message----- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Laurence S. Creider > Sent: November 26, 2012 11:27 AM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors > > And all this helps the public how? > > -- > Laurence S. Creider > Interim Head > Archives and Special Collections Dept. > University Library > New Mexico State University > Las Cruces, NM 88003 > Work: 575-646-4756 > Fax: 575-646-7477 > lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu > > On Mon, November 26, 2012 9:19 am, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: > > The distinction between “artist†and “illustrator†currently > > exists in the choices for main entry heading. Catalogers have to know > > that an artist can be a main entry heading, and an illustrator can > > only be an added entry. The distinction comes down to knowing what is > > the work and what is the expression (that is, in knowing that an > > illustrator has only contributed to the realization of a work, but is > > not responsible for the primary intellectual or creative content of the > work). > > These categorizations may seem arbitrary, but they are still the basis > > for traditional cataloging, and reappear as entity-relationships in > > RDA. RDA does go a bit further in recognizing that there may be more > > types of relationships beyond the crude main/added entry distinction. > > For example, a Creator may also have a Contributor role (as in Composer > and Singer). > > This can be seen in the second RDA/MARC example in > > http://www.rdatoolkit.org/sites/default/files/6jsc_rda_complete_exampl > > es_bibliographic_jul0312_rev.pdf > > 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 Jack Wu > > Sent: November 26, 2012 11:08 AM > > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors > > > > And the searcher, in order to search successfully, would have to know > > this distinction in our use of a different qualifier for the same > > person under different circumstances, as well, I presume? > > > > Jack Wu > > Franciscan University of Steubenville > > j...@franciscan.edu<mailto:j...@franciscan.edu> > > > >>>> Jenny Wright > >>>> <jenny.wri...@bibdsl.co.uk<mailto:jenny.wri...@bibdsl.co.uk>> > >>>> 11/26/2012 9:38 AM >>> > > My understanding is that: > > If the illustrations are integral to the work, the person who > > drew/painted them is a creator, or co-creator, and so the relationship > > designator should be “artistâ€. > > If the illustrations are complementary to the work, and belong at > > expression level (they contribute to the realisation of the work), > > then the relationship designator should be “illustratorâ€. > > What is more debatable is how one decides whether the art is integral > > to the work. Could another artist could draw new comic strips for the > > same story, or new pictures for a juvenile picture book without > > changing it to a new work? > > Jenny Wright > > Development Manager > > Bibliographic Data Services Ltd. > > > > > > > > > > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and > > Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jack Wu > > Sent: 26 November 2012 14:30 > > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA> > > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors > > > > Then, in MARC, it can sometimes be using $e illustrator, but at other > > times $e artist? Or would one be using both terms? It's somewhat > > confusing to me. > > > > Jack Wu > > Franciscan University of Steubenville > > j...@franciscan.edu<mailto:j...@franciscan.edu> > > > >>>> JSC Secretary > >>>> <jscsecret...@rdatoolkit.org<mailto:jscsecret...@rdatoolkit.org>> > >>>> 11/23/2012 8:14 AM >>> > > Jenny, > > > > The LC-PCC PS you cite is in chapter 20, the chapter for contributors, > > and states the policy requiring an authorized access point for the > > first illustrator (someone with responsibility for the expression, not > > the work). If the person involved in your resource has responsibility > > at the work level as a creator, you would not be consulting chapter 20. > > > > Yes, the only creator-level term in appenidx I is "artist" because > > "illustrator" there is the term for a relationship at the expression > > level. > > > > Judy Kuhagen > > JSC Secretary > > > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Jenny Wright > > <jenny.wri...@bibdsl.co.uk<mailto:jenny.wri...@bibdsl.co.uk>> wrote: > > Hi All > > I am looking at how to deal with children's picture books using RDA > > rules, and would like to know what others think. > > > > I think of children's picture books as being co-created by the author > > and the illustrator, and I believe it would be a different work if > > there were different illustrations, rather than a different expression. > > > > My reading of RDA is that if I believe a person to be a co-creator of > > a work, rather than a contributor to an expression, then the only > > available relationship designator for the illustrator is "artist". > > > > However, there is an LC-PCC PS stating "Provide an authorized access > > point in the bibliographic record for an illustrator in all cases of > > resources intended for children. Give the RDA appendix I designator > > "illustrator" in MARC 700 subfield $e." > > > > Can anyone help explain this apparent anomaly? > > Thank you > > Jenny Wright > > Development manager > > Bibliographic Data Services Ltd. > > > > ________________________________ > > Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > __ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service > > is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive > > anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: > > http://www.star.net.uk > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > __ > > ________________________________ > > Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance > >
