I agree with Thomas that the authors of the articles in this compilation of articles are co-creators, as per 19.1.2<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/19.1.2.html>
That rule tells us "If the resource being described contains two or more works associated with different persons, ... record the persons ... associated with each of the works in the aggregate resource as instructed under 19.2<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp19&target=rda19-393>-19.3 <http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp19&target=rda19-2459> ." 19.2<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/19.2.html> is the rule for Creators, and 19.3<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/19.3.html> is the rule for Other Person, Family, or Corporate Body Associated with a Work. In what Bernadette describes, the authors of articles are not 'contributors' in the RDA sense, even if they are called that on the resource; they are authors of works in a resource consisting of 2 or more works, so they are Creators/Authors. So, you could enter them all as Creators, with the relationship designator 'author', but remember that only the first one is core (19.2<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/19.2.html>) Now, just because they are creators, that doesn't mean that they are de facto what we used to call 'main entries'. The next step is to find your way follow 6.27.1.4<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/6.27.1.4.html> which tells us that in this situation we are to use the Preferred Title of the compilation as the Authorized Access Point (AAP) for the Work (i.e., MARC 245 Ind 1 = 0); which means that, in MARC, you will enter the AAP of the first named creator in a 700 field, and use the same tag for any other creators you wish to mention. Having provided your AAP for the Work and AAP for the Creator(s), you now decide whether you want to provide Related Work relationships (aka 'analytical added entries) for any of the works in the compilation. You could do this by: * adding the AAP of the related works, with the relationship designator 'contains (work)'. In MARC these would be name/title analytical added entries (700 Ind 2 = 2), with $i contains (work): $a * using a complete or partial contents note (505) as per PC PCC PS 25.1.1.3<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp25&target=lcps25-238>; or * using an unstructured description as per 25.1.1.3<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/25.1.1.3.html> Apparently, while we are in MARC, it is not considered necessary to give the AAP for the Creator in both a 700 and again as the name portion of a Related Work AAP in another 700, so if you want to do a Related Work 700, then do not also do a separate Creator 700. RDA would have us do both (name as AAP for Creator, and name as first part of AAP for Related Work), but while we are using MARC, this is what we seem to be doing, for now, so that we don't mess up our indexing. Then tackle your RDA 'contributors' who are the editors. I would not use the relationship 'editor of compilation' for these editors. I think that should be saved for people who are responsible for "selecting and putting together" works in a compilation, rather than just editing material in a collection. In MARC that puts them in 700 with the relationship designator ,$e editor I would treat the consultant editor as just another editor, unless you could tell, from the resource, that *he* was actually responsible for "selecting and putting together" the works . In which case, you might have to consider whether he might actually be the 'compiler' of the new work (the compilation) which would be a whole different situation, since he would be the Creator of the new work; so let's not go there, since we are not dealing with a bibliography or directory, etc. This gives us: AAP for the Work AAP for Related Creator(s)-the authors Related Works (as either AAP or in a note) AAP for Related Contributors-the editors I hope I am not on the wrong track with any of this. Deborah - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. debo...@marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.com -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:46 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relators for contributors and consultants I believe this is related to the removal of the limitation on the number of added entries in AACR2 21.7B for collections of works by different persons or bodies (from list of changes in RDA - [DF:] "http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5sec7rev.pdf ). In the examples in AACR2 21.7B, there are added entries made for persons and bodies instead of name-title headings when the number of works exceed three (although a name-title heading could still be slipped in if the total number of added entries for either names or name-titles doesn't exceed three), and when the number of persons pass three then only the first named creator of a work in the collection is recorded. That's all gone in RDA. There is no limit on the number of name-title headings (authorized access points for works) or headings for persons or bodies responsible for any one work in a collection. The continuing convention seems to be that if the work is identified with a name-title heading, then a corresponding access point for just the creator doesn't need to be made. But outside of that, there doesn't appear to be a limit on recording names related to works or expressions within a compilation. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library ________________________________ From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Bernadette Mary O'Reilly [bernadette.orei...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk] Sent: February-27-13 5:10 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relators for contributors and consultants Interesting point, but I'm not sure about the reading of 19.1.2. Does it really mean that creators of components may be treated as co-creators of the aggregate (which would presumably mean that they could have creator-level relators), or just that they are to be treated as creators with respect to the relevant components? Most of the previous responses seem to support the latter. I'm not clear about how to apply your other points to cases where there are too many components for contents notes or name-titles but only a small number of creators for those components, who therefore seem to merit AAPs and ideally would have relators for those AAPs. I would be interested to read anything further on this thread, but apologise in advance if I drop out of it - several weeks of intensive training coming up. Best wishes, Bernadette ******************* 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 Brenndorfer, Thomas Sent: 26 February 2013 15:56 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relators for contributors and consultants Multiple creators and aggregate works are covered in RDA 19.1.2: "If the resource being described contains two or more works associated with different persons, families, or corporate bodies, record the persons, families, and corporate bodies associated with each of the works in the aggregate resource as instructed under 19.2-19.3." Essentially, they can be treated as co-creators of the aggregate work. Potentially they could be linked to each respective work, if entity records are created for each work. The closest to this is to use MARC authority records for authorized and variant access points for works and expressions (which entangle the names of persons in the access points, but that's not quite the same as declaring a relationship between a person and a work). Works can be identified just through structured and unstructured descriptions as well, and so the act of "recording" the names can mean just connecting those names to the record for the aggregate resource, and then one uses a content note to list the works, perhaps with embedded statements of responsibility. The relationship designators would then describe a role played, but would not be linked to a specific work in the aggregate. A contributor is someone who helps realize a work, through roles such as editing, translating, or illustrating, and as such is an expression-level relationship. All expression-level relationship designators fall under one top level relationship element- "contributor" whether it's a single work or an aggregate work. In RDA 20.1.2, the provision for multiple contributors for an aggregate work with multiple expressions is that all the contributors can be linked to the aggregate resource, and not necessarily to each specific expression. I would take that to mean that there would be no distinction between a translator for just one work in the aggregate, and an editor for the whole compilation when recording all the relevant access points. Here's an example that shows this for contributors of different expressions in an aggregate work from RDA 20.2.1.3: Shoemaker, Alan H. Vehrs, Kristin L. Authorized access points representing the editors of compilation for: AAZPA manual of federal wildlife regulations. - Contents: v. 1. Protected species / compiled by Alan H. Shoemaker - v. 2. Laws and regulations / compiled by Kristin L. Vehrs For an aggregate resource, any one person could have responsibility for a part of a work or expression, just one work or expression, several of the works or expressions, or some role in all the works and expressions, and potentially different roles. 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 Bernadette Mary O'Reilly Sent: February-26-13 4:23 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relators for contributors and consultants 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<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto: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<mailto:slc.c...@gmail.com<mailto:slc.c...@gmail.com<mailto:slc.c...@gmail.com>>> On Feb 24, 2013, at 3:58 PM, Bernadette Mary O'Reilly <bernadette.orei...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk<mailto:bernadette.orei...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk<mailto:bernadette.orei...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk<mailto: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. *******************
<<inline: Untitled Attachment 1.jpg>>
