The bibliographic record in MARC is not a surrogate for the work; it's a mishmash of information about all the FRBR entities. So a relationship designator added to a name in a bibliographic record does not have to link the name to "the" work. Actually, though, in the example cited you have more than one work, the aggregate work (the collection) that the person edited/compiled, and the specific work within the collection that the person wrote. Both of these are described in the same MARC bibliographic record.
RDA isn't overly complicated-you can add whatever designators are needed. So if a person is both an editor of a resource and the author of one of the works in the resource in my opinion it's perfectly fine to give whatever relationship designators are appropriate to the person. Presumably if we were in an ER environment we would have a link from the person to the specific work with the relationship designator "author" and a separate link from the person to the aggregate work with the relationship designator "compiler" or whatever. The trouble is the MARC bibliographic record comprises all these entities at once. But in the current environment I see nothing wrong with recording both "author" and "compiler" (or "editor of compilation" or whatever) with an access point recorded in a 7XX field. It is not correct to say it is not possible in RDA to record added access points for persons who contributed to a collection, or to record added access points to works within a collection. You can record the authorized access point for any (or all) of the contributing authors in 7XXs and/or you can record the authorized access point for any or all of the works in 7XXs. Again, the MARC bibliographic record is not just describing the collection as a whole, it also describes the works within the collection; but that's a MARC thing, not an RDA thing, and the MARC structure is no different from when we were applying AACR2. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept. 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 9:52 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] multiple relationship designators Richard's question leads right into the heart of something which has been puzzling me for some time. If I understand RDA correctly, it would be wrong to use the relationship designator "author" in an ordinary added entry field here, because it can only be used for somebody who is a creator. The four editors, however, are not creators of the work as a whole (the anthology), but only of their own contributions in the book. So I think, "author" cannot be applied to them with respect to the work as a whole. The only possibility would be to record a relationship to a related work, i.e. to the essay (or whatever it is) included in the collection. By the way, I'm not sure about the situation in MARC: I assume it is possible to record relationship designators in a name/title entry and/or in a 505 note? The same thing is true for my favourite title pages of collections, which show something like "with contributions by" and a list of names. According to the German RAK (and also AACR2, I believe), there would have been an obligatory added entry under the first named person in such a list. In RDA I believe this is no longer possible, as the authors of the essays do not have a direct relationship to the collection at all. With respect to the collection as a whole, they are nothing - neither creator, nor other person associated with a work, nor contributor. So there can't be a direct relationship to them. The only way to make an added entry for somebody who has contributed to the collection is to record a relationship to a related work. I can see the reasoning behind it, but I still feel RDA is overly complicated here. Heidrun Richard Baumgarten wrote: I am working on an anthology of local literature. I am listing all four editors. All of them have some of their writings in the book. I am not creating a Contents note because of the sheer size that it would be. Should I just use the relationship designator of editor or use both author and editor? Richard Baumgarten Cataloger Johnson County Library P.O. Box 2901 Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66201-1301 (913) 495-2454 baumgart...@jocolibrary.org<mailto:baumgart...@jocolibrary.org> -- --------------------- Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi<http://www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi>
