Thank you Mac. I also thought not having a 700 for Garfinkle was an error, and I will be adding one for her in my record.
After thinking on this a bit more I'm starting to feel that LC considered this book to be a commentary and cataloged it following the rule for a Commentary (21.13B1): "If the chief source of information of the item being catalogued presents the item as a commentary, enter it as such (see 21.1-21.7). Make an added entry under the heading appropriate to the text" and this is why Melammed has the main entry. And also rule 21.6B1: " If, in a work of shared responsibility, principal responsibility is attributed (by the wording or the layout of the chief source of information of the item being catalogued) to one person or corporate body, enter under the heading for that person or body ... Make added entries under the headings for other persons or bodies involved if there are not more than two." I don't have a problem with following LC's assessment and having Melammed in the 100 and Garfinkle in a 700. On the title page only Melammed is represented as being responsible in terms of the layout, Garfinkle is only mentioned under her maiden name in the other title information. If following LC's AACR2 interpretation in upgrading to RDA I'd follow rule 6.27.1.6 Commentary, Annotations, Illustrative Content, Etc., Added to a Previously Existing Work. I think that for Melammed I will add 3 relationship designators: |eauthor,|etranslator,|eeditor of compilation. I would prefer something more along the lines of |e author of added commentary, rather than |e author, but that doesn't exist. Is contributor a valid relationship designator? I don't see it in RDA itself, even though there is a MARC Relator Code for it (ctb). I see that I.1 states "If none of the terms listed in this appendix is appropriate or sufficiently specific, use another concise term to indicate the nature of the relationship", and I'm wondering how much freedom we have to coin terms, or if this is frowned upon and we should wait for JSC to come up with new relationship designators? Thanks again for your help Mac! -Dana -----Original Message----- From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 7:33 PM To: vanme...@ias.edu Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Help with relationship designator Dana Van Meter posted: >In other words, would I also need a |e of editor, or if not editor, >then a >|e editor of compilation. I think my major problem is in understanding >exactly what a compilation is. LC , under AACR2 did not even have a >700 for Garfinkle ... Omitting the 700 for the poet is an error it seems to me, not an AACR2 difference. If you are not replacing the AACR2 record, I think you should add the 700. U assume the Cutter is for the poet. If not, it should be, regardless of who is 100. In your local RDA record, or if replacing the AACR2 record, and if the poems are half the content, I would consider coding the poet as 100 $eauthor (too bad "poet" is not in the list), and the editor as: 700 $econttributor.$eeditor of compilation,$etranslator. You could do a longer line up: 700 $eannotator,$ecompiler,$econtributor,$eeditor,$etranslator. The two RDA relaltionship phrases below also fit her roles, but IMNSHO are too long to use in conjunction with $eeditor of complilation; if wanting to use just one, that is the one I would use; it combines compiling and editing. writer of added commentary writer of added text __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
