Thank you Bob, and Mac for your thoughts. Have cataloged my book and sent it on its way.
-Dana From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 7:58 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] One author, with a single contribution by another author (correction) This would be clearer if we were creating clear separate descriptions for the separate entities (e.g. work/expression/manifestation/item descriptions, each linked as appropriate to related entities such as the author of the work) instead of the grab-bag of the current MARC bibliographic record. You could make it clearer in a bibliographic record by giving an access point for the work by the other author instead of giving a simple added access point for the person: 700 12 Name. $t Metallurgy of tanged and looped spearheads. Otherwise, yes, “author” is the relationship designator. The person is the author of a resource represented in the bibliographic record. The fact that the access point with “author” as a relationship designator is not clearly linked to what the person is the author of is a problem with the MARC structure. Of course leaving the relationship designator off makes it even less clear what the person did in relationship to the bibliographic record (at least in my opinion). 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 Dana Van Meter Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 5:31 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] One author, with a single contribution by another author (correction) Ugh, I’m sorry, I also see now that the use of relationship designators isn’t core in RDA, but I’m just curious if you were to use a relationship designator in this case, how you feel about using author for such a slight contribution. -Dana From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dana Van Meter Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 7:27 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] One author, with a single contribution by another author (correction) I guess in RDA it’s not an error to have an author listed in the s.o.r., but to not have an access point for them, so in LCCN 2012544079 LC did not have to add a 700 for the author of the contribution, but I don’t like not adding an access point for a person when they are named in the s.o.r., especially when we’re dealing with only one additional access point, as we are in this case. -Dana From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dana Van Meter Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 7:10 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] One author, with a single contribution by another author I’m cataloging a book with a single author, which includes a single contribution by one other author (in my case the contribution is an Appendix 1, Metallurgy of tanged and looped spearheads). There is LC copy for my book (LCCN 2012544079), but LC didn’t even add a 700 field for the other author mentioned on the title page, which seems to be an error. (I should note that this record employs Kevin Randall’s suggestion for enclosing the authors’ institutional affiliations in parentheses in the s.o.r.—the ( ) don’t appear on the title page). I’ve searched LC’s catalog for other rda records which have “with a contribution by” in the title field and retrieve some records, although about half are In Process. Of the fully cataloged records, only 3 titles contain only a single contribution by one other author. LC has added a 700 for the author of the contribution in these records, but has not added a |e to the 700 field (LCCN 2012030921; LCCN 2012018430; LCCN 2012542810 (however the last 2 records also do not have a |e for the 100)). I pretty much know the answer to my question, but I’m a little uneasy with it. My question is, what to put in the |e for the author of the contribution? I know that |e author is really my only option, but it just feels odd to call the main author (100) author, and then to also call the author of the contribution author when the book is primarily the work of the author in the 100 field. I also have this issue when books which contain papers by multiple authors list all the authors on the title page. I know I can say [and six others] in the s.o.r., which could solve my problem, but the LC-PCC PS advises not to do this. For these types of works using |e author in my 700 fields isn’t inaccurate, but to me there is a difference in responsibility level between say, a co-author of a book who ends up in a 700 field [i.e., contents which are a collaborative effort], and an author of a single paper in a volume which contains 10 or more papers [i.e., contributions to the contents prepared separately by each author]. It would be nice if there were also relationship designators co-author and contributing author (which LC currently has in a 700 field |e in one In Process record (LCCN 2010411360), even though it is not in either RDA, or the MARC Code List for Relators. (Medförfattare translates to co-author)). I guess using the generic author will save us from having to spend additional time trying to figure out who among a list of authors carries more responsibility for the contents, and how collaboratively the authors worked in cases where the chief source of information isn’t clear, but it just feels odd to me to call everyone author when I know one or more authors have primary responsibility for the contents, and others have made smaller contributions (or just a single contribution in my case). I guess there are other clues in the record for the patron as to the responsibility level of an author (content of the s.o.r., or a note field), and in the end perhaps patrons don’t really care--they just want the resource, and also OPAC displays come in to play here, I’m just curious what others will use in the |e in cases like this (or if you will just skip a |e in the 700 field in these cases). I guess with AACR2 I didn’t seem to be so bothered when a co-author got stuck in a 700, but now that I am able to add a relationship designator, I feel uneasy calling everyone in a 700 field (who isn’t an editor) author regardless of how much they have contributed to the contents. It seems that there has been some thought given to this though, as in the MARC Code List for Relators there are codes for Author of afterword, colophon, etc. [aft], and Author of introduction, etc. [aui], even though these don’t have designators in RDA yet. Given the existing designators in RDA at this time, I guess I have no choice other than author for the |e for my author of the contribution, but I’m just wondering if anyone else feels a bit odd about doing this, as I do. -Dana Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu
