Thanks, Sean. That tends to confirm my suggestion yesterday that the reason why list I.3 lacks relators for contributors to a compilation is that it is assumed that if they merit anything they can have a name-title.
However, the fact remains that a lot of resources either list contributors without specifying who did which bit or have far too many bits for name-titles or even contents notes, and yet some or all of the contributors are worth AAPs; and it would be good for the AAPs to have suitable relators. How about a compilation of 500 photos by Francis Frith and Henry Taunt? In principle one could make one name-title entry for each photographer, but it does seem odd to privilege 2 photos out of 500, and the name-titles would do nothing to convey that they are photographers. And if the photos were not individually attributed one could not even do that much. In the dictionary of biography which was the starting point for this discussion there are probably about 2.5k separate articles, but a relatively small number of contributors, for whom there is a statement of responsibility just after that for the editors. I have concluded for the moment that there just are not suitable relators available for these situations, so I will advise my colleagues to make AAPs without relators for contributors to compilations if they are important enough and it is impractical to create analytical entries. So far no one has offered suggestions about my consultant editor. This particular consultant is not worth agonising over, but I think it could be useful to have an I.3 relator such as 'adviser' for people who are presented as having major, deliberate intellectual input into a resource before and during its creation without actually writing/drawing/etc. any of it. Best wishes, Bernadette P.S. What would be a good relator for a cook who created the recipes in a book but did not put them into words? ******************* Bernadette O'Reilly Catalogue Support Librarian 01865 2-77134 Bodleian Libraries, Osney One Building Osney Mead Oxford OX2 0EW. ******************* From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Sean Chen Sent: 26 February 2013 04:44 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relators for contributors and consultants Bernadette, My understanding is that the relator term "author" is meant to be related to a creator of a work. In the model you are describing the contributing authors aren't the creator of the described work which is the "dictionary of biography". I think general practice is not to delve into the analytic works that are contained within the described work. This sort of practice if was drilled into would provide an Authorized Access Point for each of the contributed works (entries in this case) and their associated creators. At the least LC-PCC policy would instead include a contents note as an unstructured description in place of these individual access points for the works contained within the described work. So, I think the bigger issue is: do the 15 contributing authors (of individual entries) need individual access to the their contributions.... Or another way to frame it is: do the individual works within a compilation need controlled access points for each of them within your catalog. If not then you can stop there, but if you think yes, then the "correct" way (as I understand it) is to provide an authorized access point for each of the created works by the contributing authors. However, I think the decision for most, is a negative, but with the increasingly networked environment the scope of what is necessary is expanding, that not could become yes. -- Sean Chen <slc.c...@gmail.com> On Feb 24, 2013, at 3:58 PM, Bernadette Mary O'Reilly <bernadette.orei...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk> wrote: Hello, I want to provide a 'model' record for training purposes for a resource which is a dictionary of biography. It has a consultant editor, 3 editors and 15 contributors. The latter presumably did most of the writing and are between them responsible for most of the intellectual/artistic content of the resource, but because they are responsible for different bits the work is a compilation, entered under title. 'editor of compilation' seems right for the 3 editors. I suppose that the consultant editor will have to be just 'editor', but that doesn't seem good for someone who presumably is offering guidance before and during the writing rather than tidying it afterwards. And what about the contributors? Is it legitimate to use 'author' for contributors to a work entered under a title? They are authors of their own bits, but not creators with respect to the work as a whole, and 'author' is in the creator list. (I only plan to name one contributor - the rest will be '[and fourteen others].') A similar case: a compilation of photographs by many different people, each, naturally, responsible for separate photos. Could they be 'photographer'? 'illustrator' is not good, since the text is slight and subordinate to the photos. And if a composer sets a pre-existing poem to music, what relator term should the poet get? None of the creator list terms are available, and 'writer of added lyrics' presumes that the music predates the text. Suggestions or clarifications would be very welcome. Thanks, Bernadette ******************* Bernadette O'Reilly Catalogue Support Librarian 01865 2-77134 Bodleian Libraries, Osney One Building Osney Mead Oxford OX2 0EW. *******************
