Alison Hitchens <ahitc...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote: > Thanks Mac, I may have missed it on the list if there was a discussion > that we could use element names as relators. I had RDA-L set to no mail > while I was away! > > I've been going by the LC RDA training modules and they give the example > of publisher: "Publisher" isn't used as an RDA relationship designator > because that relationship is an element" although in the notes for the > slide it says " However, there are no RDA police who would object if you > used a different vocabulary and added a term such as "publisher."" > (this is from slide 31 of the Relationships module) > > But those modules were created in the summer so things may have changed > since then! Using $e contributor seems clearer than not including a > relator term at all since the 700 tag can contain many types of > relationships >
Another way to think of the Appendix I designators is that they are the more specific forms of relationships depicted in Chapters 19-22. Note the headings for each portion of Appendix I and how they link up to the elements in those chapters, e.g.: RDA 21.4 (Distributor) <=> RDA I.4.3 (Relationship Designators for Distributors) Our use of "$e publisher" is based on this, rather than the term originating from the relator code lists or elsewhere. So I agree with the practice that if there is no suitable term in Appendix I and/or none can be conjured up from elsewhere (e.g., $4 relator codes) or made up, then bump up one level to the Ch. 19-22 elements. (I've written before about using "other (work)", etc., designators for those "other " elements.) The same sort of thing for the Appendix J designators: we've used "related work" in added entries once in a while. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex <http://www.minitex.umn.edu/>
