Dana Van Meter <vanme...@ias.edu> wrote: > In the case of the $4 code, you’re saying you would use just the $4 code, > right? (And not a combination of $4 plus $e using the terminology > accompanying the code in the MARC Code List for Relators?). I don’t have a > problem with using just the $4 code, I just wanted to be clear that you are > saying you would just use the $4 code alone in cases where a term doesn’t > yet exist in the text of RDA. >
Yes, I just use the code alone. I toyed around with employing both $e/$j terms and $4 codes with name headings, but I came away not seeing any advantages to it. As a side note, my general pecking order for these name heading designators is: RDA's appendix; if none are found there, look in the MARC relator code list; if none are found there, I go back to RDA and use one of its high-level terms (e.g., creator). There are a few exceptions to this pattern; the high-level term "publisher" is one I go to right if I'm tracing one of those in the record. And I realize that I could look at other lists too, but I have neither the time or energy for that nor is there any good way in MARC to point at the $4 or $e/$j and say, "Hey, this code/term came from that list way over there." -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex <http://www.minitex.umn.edu/>
