A question I asked myself this morning about these relater codes.
If a patron, enters a personal name and is given the name, plus, author,
editor, compiler, etc. options, I wonder if the patron will say to
him/herself, "Geez, was he the author, or was he just the compiler. Gee,
maybe I should go home and check the citation."
I think it will be easier on the patron to enter by personal name in this
case and if the list is too long, limit key word or something like it. I
am not too sure if relators will be that helpful for patrons--or only for
patrons who know* exactly *how that person is related to the work and the
relator has been entered correctly. I mean, is a "compiler" an "author" or
not?
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:52 AM, J. McRee Elrod <m...@slc.bc.ca> wrote:
> Rita Lifton asked:
>
> >Referring to the statement that "many libraries are planning to strip
> >off $4 and/or $e ...", are you saying that the subfields would be
> ?entered in cataloging and then suppressed? Just wanted to understand.
>
> When SLC begins RDA cataloguing (when a majority of derived records
> are RDA, April or May?) we intend to enter $4 relationship codes (in
> accordance with LAC policy), which could be exported for clients as
> $eterms in either English or French (drawn the code definitions, which
> often differ from RDA terms).
>
> So far, only one client has said they want relator terms. All others
> want them removed. Therefore it is important to have added entries
> justified in the description so that the relationship is known in the
> absence of a code or term. (There is the problem of unrelated access
> points being retained when a record for one manifestation is edited to
> create a record for another, e.g., the English and French versions of
> the same work, universal for Canadian Federal documents.)
>
> Of course if in the future we have a client whose ILS can translate
> the codes, we would export the codes for them.
>
> Our major clients these days are e-aggregators and e-publishers, who
> in turn make records available to libraries with a variety of ILS
> capabilities. We are offering them the option of having both RDA and
> AACR2 compatible versions of the records, at little additional cost.
>
> So yes, we will enter the codes, but usually take them out on export;
> most small libraries would not have the IT staff to take them out or
> suppress them.
>
> We will leave the codes in for records loaded to OCLC. We don't load
> all our records to OCLC, just for those aggregators and publishers who
> want OCNs in their records. LAC has stopped loading those records
> because they lack Canadian ILL locations, but many are loaded to LAC by
> libraries who acquire them from the aggregator or publisher; those may
> lack the codes. I have been unable to persuade LAC to see Amicus as a
> source of catalogue records as well as a source of ILL locations.
>
> I doubt if many libraries doing their own cataloguing would enter $4
> or $e if they don't intend to utilize them. We will do so since we
> use the same records for all clients, thus they must be added if even
> one client wants them.
>
>
> __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing
> HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/<http://www.slc.bc.ca/>
> ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
>
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
