> -----Original Message----- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod > Sent: April-04-13 3:33 PM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] multiple relationship designators > > Rochard Baumgarten asked: > > > >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? > > We would not use $eauthor ore $faut. They are not not authors of the work, > only of parts of it, so are contributors not authors.
Not to be confused with 'contributors' in the RDA sense, which are relationships to expressions only (editor, translator, etc.) The added entries are indeed and emphatically "authors" in the RDA sense, of the respective parts. The appearance of $econtributor on an RDA record for any of these will be corrected as a clear mistake if the persons have no role beyond author of one or more parts. $4ctb would be considered valid, because that uses a very different definition of 'contributor,' used only in a narrower sense. This sense doesn't appear in AACR2, and the situation closest to making added entries for authors of parts of works is found in AACR2 21.7B1 which only refers to making added entries for those "responsible" for the parts, which is the same wording used for work relationships (rendered in RDA as 'creator,' or more specifically 'author'). Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
