Would this not be problematic if you were trying to build a catalog or database based on relationships?
Roman S. Panchyshyn, MLIS Catalog Librarian, Assistant Professor University Libraries Kent State University tel: 330-672-1699 e-mail: rpanc...@kent.edu [Description: Description: cid:340CA688-84F9-46CF-97E9-1D715D86ACB5] From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Arakawa, Steven Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 3:20 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designators in LC Records I believe so. LC practice (as distinguished from PCC practice) is to require RDs only for illustrators of children's books, although that doesn't mean LC catalogers cannot make individual decisions to add RDs in other categories. And I see the PCC guidelines more as best practice rather than mandatory. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation Catalog & Metada Services Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu<mailto:steven.arak...@yale.edu> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Panchyshyn, Roman Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 12:47 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA> Subject: [RDA-L] Relationship designators in LC Records Like many libraries, we have an approval plan set up through YBP where we get LC records through OCLC PromptCat for materials. With some of the new materials, we are getting full RDA records (all have $e rda in the 040), generated by LC, but there is no relationship designator ($e) in the 100 tag for the creator. Here are two examples from OCLC: (OCLC number) # 805831494 # 813690891 I'm looking at a document titled: PCC Guidelines for the Application of Relationship Designators in Bibliographic Records, form 05/16, that states: Include a relationship designator for all creators, whether they are coded MARC 1XX or MARC 7XX. If the MARC 1XX is not a creator, the addition of a relationship designator is optional though strongly encouraged. Add a relationship designator even if the MARC field definition already implies a relationship. Relationships should be coded explicitly and not inferred from MARC or other parts of the record. Is this an area where PCC and LC differ? Roman S. Panchyshyn, MLIS Catalog Librarian, Assistant Professor University Libraries Kent State University tel: 330-672-1699 e-mail: rpanc...@kent.edu<mailto:rpanc...@kent.edu> [Description: Description: cid:340CA688-84F9-46CF-97E9-1D715D86ACB5]
<<inline: image001.png>>
