[RDA-L] SIGNOFF RDA-L

[Smuts, Kate (K )]

Thanks






Kate Smuts
Knowledge Management
Sasol Technology
Telephone number: +27 16 960 3882
Right fax: +27 11 522 5547
Cell Phone: +27 842687737
E-mail: kate.sm...@sasol.com
[Button artwork]



NOTICE: Please note that this eMail, and the contents thereof, 
is subject to the standard Sasol eMail legal notice which may be found at: 
http://www.sasol.com/legalnotices   
   

If you cannot access the legal notice through the URL attached and you wish 
to receive a copy thereof please send an eMail to 
legalnot...@sasol.com

<>

Re: [RDA-L] "Author"

[Adam L. Schiff]

We intend to use one word relator terms only, in this case, "issuer".
RDA's "issuing body" seems more acurate than "author" to me for
conferences, symposia, and law reform commissions, among others.

Mac


Except that the designator "issuing body" is not used for the creator of a 
work.  "issuing body" is one of the relationship designators that is to be 
used for other persons, families, or corporate bodies associated with a 
work.  That is, they are associated with the work but they are not 
considered creators of it.  In AACR2 terms, these entities could not be 
given main entry because they are not creators of works.  In RDA terms, 
their names would not be used when constructing the preferred access point 
for a work.


Perhaps a clearer example is the director of a film.  The director in 
AACR2 or RDA could almost never be recorded in the 1XX field.  (The very 
rare exception is when a single person is individually responsible for the 
conception and execution of all aspects of the film.  In which case the 
creator relationship designator "filmmaker" is used.)


Since conferences are considered to be creators, you are supposed to 
pick a relationship designator from among those used for creators 
(Appendix I.2.1).  Choosing "issuing body" for this relationship in RDA is 
just plain wrong, since it comes from I.2.2, the list for entities 
associated with a work other than creators.  In the absence of a more 
specific term in I.2.1, I continue to maintain that "author" is the 
correct designator.


Respectfully,

Adam

**
* Adam L. Schiff * 
* Principal Cataloger*

* University of Washington Libraries *
* Box 352900 *
* Seattle, WA 98195-2900 *
* (206) 543-8409 * 
* (206) 685-8782 fax *
* asch...@u.washington.edu   * 
**

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[Hal Cain]

On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 12:59:14 -0800, Karen Coyle  wrote:

>Quoting John Attig :
>>
>> Second, there are some relationships that are part of the RDA  
>> element structure that do not have designators.  "Publisher" is one  
>> of these.  This is an element in RDA and (therefore?) does not have  
>> a designator in Appendix I.
>
>I noticed this a while back. I assumed it was intentional because  
>"publisher" is represented with a transcribed text, not a Group2  
>entity. you could actually have both, with the RDA Manifestation  
>element being for the transcribed text, and an Expression - to -  
>Group2 relationship if someone wants to treat the publisher as a  
>corporate body (presumably with an authority record). It would be nice  
>to have both options.

We already have, in AACR2/ISBD cataloguing, names in transcribed text form in 
the statement of responsibility (MARC 245c), and maybe in specific MARC tags 
like 508 and 511, and in controlled form as access points.  We don't (though it 
might be desirable) any specific link between those different data elements. 
Access point for publisher's name isn't really any different.

Hal Cain
Melbourne, Australia
hegc...@gmail.com

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[Bryan Campbell]

Thomas, 

LibraryThing also released a feature recently that allows members to assign 
roles to names:

Big “other authors” changes
https://www.librarything.com/blogs/librarything/2011/11/big-other-authors-changes/

How timely given the current discussion about relators.  

Quoting further, "We’ve also added the ability to edit the name and add a role 
for the “primary” (ie., “lead”) author of a work, something much-requested 
during the BETA test of this feature." 

It's interesting to see that the very same issues we talk about here and on 
other lists crop up often in LT discussion threads. 

Bryan Campbell
Danville, PA

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[Adam L. Schiff]

On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, J. McRee Elrod wrote:


Adam answered:


What $e term would be used after a 111?  We do many law symposia.


author


I remember a French cataloguer at IFLA snippily telling me that
corporate bodies do not write books, people do.

The papers in symposia are written by individual lawyers, and
delivered at the symposia.  The symposia has no hand in their
creation.


True, as far as it goes.  But in both AACR2 and RDA symposia can be main 
entries/creators of works.  Symposia, like other corporate bodies, have 
long been considered capable of authorship by our rules.


RDA 19.2.1.1.1 Corporate Bodies Considered to Be Creators
Corporate bodies are considered to be creators when they are responsible 
for originating, issuing, or causing to be issued, works that fall into 
one or more of the following categories:


a) works of an administrative nature dealing with any of the following 
aspects of the body itself:


i) its internal policies, procedures, finances, and/or operations

or

ii) its officers, staff, and/or membership (e.g., directories)

or

iii) its resources (e.g., catalogues, inventories)

b) works that record the collective thought of the body (e.g., reports of 
commissions, committees; official statements of position on external 
policies, standards)


c) works that report the collective activity of

i) a conference (e.g., proceedings, collected papers)

or

ii) an expedition (e.g., results of exploration, investigation)

or

iii) an event (e.g., an exhibition, fair, festival) falling within the 
definition of a corporate body (see 18.1.2) provided that the conference, 
expedition, or event is named in the resource being described


d) works that result from the collective activity of a performing group as 
a whole where the responsibility of the group goes beyond that of mere 
performance, execution, etc.


e) cartographic works originating with a corporate body other than a body 
that is merely responsible for their publication or distribution.


f) legal works of the following types:

i) laws of a political jurisdiction

ii) decrees of a head of state, chief executive, or ruling executive body

iii) bills and drafts of legislation

iv) administrative regulations, etc.

v) constitutions, charters, etc.

vi) court rules

vii) treaties, international agreements, etc.

viii) charges to juries, indictments, court proceedings, and court 
decisions.



While it's true that a conference itself doesn't write the text of its 
proceedings, it's treated as a collective creator.  When you go to the 
relationship designators for creators, the appropriate one for a 
conference is author, no matter that you don't like the term when used for 
corproate bodies and the fact that it implies actual writing by an 
individual.  Since the definition in RDA applies, the correct designator 
is author.


"A person, family, or corporate body responsible for creating a work that 
is primarily textual in content, regardless of media type (e.g., printed 
text, spoken word, electronic text, tactile text) or genre (e.g., poems, 
novels, screenplays, blogs)."


Under rule 19.2.1.1.1 a conference is responsible for creating a work 
consisting of its proceedings.  If the proceedings are textual, the 
appropriate designator is "author".  One could always propose a more 
specific designator to use for the specific situation of a conference as 
creator of a work.  Any suggestions for that?


**
* Adam L. Schiff * 
* Principal Cataloger*

* University of Washington Libraries *
* Box 352900 *
* Seattle, WA 98195-2900 *
* (206) 543-8409 * 
* (206) 685-8782 fax *
* asch...@u.washington.edu   * 
**

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[J. McRee Elrod]

Adam answered:

>> What $e term would be used after a 111?  We do many law symposia.
>
>author

I remember a French cataloguer at IFLA snippily telling me that
corporate bodies do not write books, people do.

The papers in symposia are written by individual lawyers, and
delivered at the symposia.  The symposia has no  hand in their
creation.

The record for a law commission report written by one person with no
official recommendations, and that person as 100, would have 710
$eauthor?  A law commission report with official recommendations
written by a task force, entered under the commission, would have 110
$eauthor?  The commision had no hand in their creation; they just
adopted them.

The relator term "author" in all three cases would not be true.

I think we will use "issuer" (short for "issuingn body") if we must
use relator terms.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[Nirmala Gounder]

Please take me off the list. I am not involved in this area of work anymore. 

Regards 
Nirmala

Nirmala Gounder ALIANZA, RLIANZA| Team Leader Technical Services | Bay of 
Plenty Polytechnic Library | Private Bag 12001, Tauranga 3143 | P: 07 544 0190 
ext  6768 | F: 07 544 2386 | nirmala.goun...@boppoly.ac.nz | www.boppoly.ac.nz
 

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2011 11:37 a.m.
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework 
statement

>
> What $e term would be used after a 111?  We do many law symposia.

author

It is considered the creator of the work, just like a person may be.  So 
the correct relator term is author.

>From RDA Appendix I:

author A person, family, or corporate body responsible for creating a work 
that is primarily textual in content, regardless of media type (e.g., 
printed text, spoken word, electronic text, tactile text) or genre (e.g., 
poems, novels, screenplays, blogs). Use also for persons, etc., creating a 
new work by paraphrasing, rewriting, or adapting works by another creator 
such that the modification has substantially changed the nature and 
content of the original or changed the medium of expression.

**
* Adam L. Schiff * 
* Principal Cataloger*
* University of Washington Libraries *
* Box 352900 *
* Seattle, WA 98195-2900 *
* (206) 543-8409 * 
* (206) 685-8782 fax *
* asch...@u.washington.edu   * 
**
Private and Confidential
This electronic mail message and any files transmitted with it are intended 
solely for the use of the addressee(s) and may contain information that is 
confidential or privileged. If you receive this message and you are not the 
intended addressee (or responsible for the delivery of the message to the 
intended addressee) please notify the author immediately, disregard the 
contents of this message and delete the message from your system.  Please note 
that we accept no responsibility for viruses or any other malicious code in 
this email or any included attachments.

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

Some additional observations on relationship designators...

IMDb.com uses "job type" as a way of defining relationships between persons and 
content.
So for Clint Eastwood, his filmography is organized by his relationship to 
films:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm142/
There is a catchall job type "miscellaneous crew", but even the listings under 
that job type have added details about his role.


There is a two-tier structure in RDA for relationships-- relationship elements 
and more specific relationship designators (which in turn can be further 
fine-tuned).

For a Work, there are two elements: Creator, and, Other Person (Family, 
Corporate Body) Associated with a Work (including religious and legal works).

For an Expression, there is one element: Contributor.

For an Manifestation, there are five elements: Producer of an Unpublished 
Resource, Publisher, Distributor, Manufacturer, Other Person (Family, Corporate 
Body) Associated with a Manifestation

For an Item, there are three elements: Owner, Custodian, Other Person (Family, 
Corporate Body) Associated with an Item


Separating out relationships to the Work from the other entities overlaps with 
decisions about the main entry, or, in RDA, decision about authorized or 
variant access points for the work. The intellectual work in making those 
decisions is largely the same. The degree of granularity for the nature of 
relationship should be up to the community involved. I would think that the 
respective domain expertises would find efficient and accurate designators that 
serve endusers effectively, to whatever level of granularity is appropriate.

Depending on the resource, I do find relator codes can result in a better 
distribution of effort-- a record for a movie with 25 added entries is easier 
to understand when the relator code is connected to the name. The alternative 
of scanning piles of text in notes to understand the relationship is less 
efficient, depending on how the record is used and who is using it.

The RDA example records at
http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC_RDA_Complete_Examples_(Bibliographic)_revised.pdf
indicate how different encoding methods can handle relationships.

In the MARC encoding methods on page 7, multiple roles to different Group 1 
entities can be concatenated:

100 1# $a Porter, Kalan, $e composer, $e singer
700 1# $a Sokyrka, Theresa, $e singer

In an RDA element set version, the relationships can be spelled out 
differently, and offer greater clarity as to the nature of the roles and why 
one name can be a main entry and the other cannot:

Work:
Work manifested: Porter, Kalan. 219 days.

Creator: Porter, Kalan
Relationship designator: composer


Expression:
Contributor: Porter, Kalan
Relationship designator: singer

Contributor: Sokyrka, Theresa
Relationship designator: singer


The degree to which encoding is made efficient is up to the encoding scheme and 
the interface. As an example, LibraryThing uses relatively efficient drop-down 
menus to help people enter designators between related works:
http://www.librarything.com/wiki/index.php/HelpThing:Work/Relationships#Relationships_and_Examples

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[Adam L. Schiff]

What $e term would be used after a 111?  We do many law symposia.


author

It is considered the creator of the work, just like a person may be.  So 
the correct relator term is author.



From RDA Appendix I:


author A person, family, or corporate body responsible for creating a work 
that is primarily textual in content, regardless of media type (e.g., 
printed text, spoken word, electronic text, tactile text) or genre (e.g., 
poems, novels, screenplays, blogs). Use also for persons, etc., creating a 
new work by paraphrasing, rewriting, or adapting works by another creator 
such that the modification has substantially changed the nature and 
content of the original or changed the medium of expression.


**
* Adam L. Schiff * 
* Principal Cataloger*

* University of Washington Libraries *
* Box 352900 *
* Seattle, WA 98195-2900 *
* (206) 543-8409 * 
* (206) 685-8782 fax *
* asch...@u.washington.edu   * 
**

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[Deemer, Pam]

Reading the discussions about codes for designators and WEMI levels, made me 
remember for early U.S. court materials the so-called editors or compilers were 
considered "creators", not "contributors". Not all definitions we think are 
simple, are so. An original cataloger has to know a subject to know correct 
proper Group status for an access point or designation of a true role.

Is there a discovery system or catalog now that can display as facets the 
various roles in works and expressions that a person/entity may have? If I did 
an entity search, something like John D. Smythe: Creator (65), Contributor (68) 
or John D. Smythe: Creator: author (65), painter (45), Contributor: compiler 
(43), illustrator (21), composer (4) would display?

Pam Deemer
Assistant Law Librarian, Acquisitions and Cataloging Services
Emory University Hugh F. MacMillan Law Library
1301 Clifton Road
Atlanta, GA 30322-2780
(404)-727-0850

lib...@emory.edu





This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.

If you have received this message in error, please contact
the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
original message (including attachments).

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[J. McRee Elrod]

Christopher Winters said:

>I've presided over the creation of more than 2400 RDA records for
>sheet maps over the last 13 months at the University of Chicago
>Library. Relationship designators have given us more problems than
>any other aspect of RDA, and (like the book catalogers here) we
>stopped using them  ...

This real life experience very much accords with our internal
experiments.  We have come up with a simplified relator term list* in one
alphabetic order, in case we *have* to use them, but we hope not.
Some RDA terms are too long for conventient display.

While relator terms are fairly problem free for a simple printed book,
simple printed books are a small minority of what SLC catalogues (records
for most of those are available from the national cataloguing
agencies).

We catalogue law reform commission reports for law firm libraries.  A
report which contains official recommendations of the commission is
entered under the commission.  A report which is informational only is
entered under personal author or title.  What would be the relator
term(s) used for that 110 and 710?  Different or the same?   "Issuing
body" for both?  Usually the commission is also the publisher.  
  
What $e term would be used after a 111?  We do many law symposia.

It seems to me many theorists lack the practical experience of Billie
and Christopher.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__


abridger
actor
addressee
animator
appellant
appellee
architect
artist
author
[bookseller]
cartographer
[cinematographer] [Use for 'director of photography']
choreographer
commentator
composer [Also use for all RDA relator phrases beginning 'composer']
conductor
court governed [Assign and export as 'court']
compiler
[conference - use "issuer"]
dancer
dedicatee
defendant
degree granting institution [Assign and export as 'institution']
[depicted]
designer
[director] [Usedfor 'film director', 'radio director', 'television director']
director of photography [Assign and export as 'cinematographer']
draftsman
enacting jurisdiction [assign and export as 'jurisdiction']
editor
engraver
etcher
film director [Assign and export as 'director']
film producer [Assign and export as 'producer']
filmmaker
honouree
host
host institution [Assign and export as 'host']
illustrator
[institution] [Use for 'degree granting institution']
instrumentalist
interviewee
interviewer
inventor
[issuer] [Use for 'issuing body']
issuing body [assign and export as 'issuer']
judge
[jurisdiction] [Use for 'enacting jurisdiction' and 'jurisdiction governed']
jurisdiction governed [Assign and export as 'jurisdiction]
landscape architect [Assign and export as 'landscaper']
[landscaper] ]Use for 'landscape architect]
librettist
lyricist
moderator
narrator
panelist
performer
photographer
plaintiff
praeses
printer
printmaker
[producer] [Use for 'film producer', 'radio producer', 'television producer']
production company
programmer
[publisher]
puppeteer
radio director [Assign and export as 'director']
radio producer [Assign and export as 'producer']
respondent
screenwriter
sculptor
singer
speaker
[sponsor] ]Use for 'sponsoring body']
sponsoring body [Assign and export as 'sponsor']
storyteller
teacher
television director [Assign and export as 'director']
television producer [Assign and export as 'producer']
transcriber
translator
[writer - use 'author']

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[John Attig]

On 11/9/2011 3:59 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:

Quoting John Attig :


Second, there are some relationships that are part of the RDA element 
structure that do not have designators.  "Publisher" is one of 
these.  This is an element in RDA and (therefore?) does not have a 
designator in Appendix I.


I noticed this a while back. I assumed it was intentional because 
"publisher" is represented with a transcribed text, not a Group2 
entity. you could actually have both, with the RDA Manifestation 
element being for the transcribed text, and an Expression - to - 
Group2 relationship if someone wants to treat the publisher as a 
corporate body (presumably with an authority record). It would be nice 
to have both options.


Actually, the publisher relationship is an element in Chapter 21, 
Persons, Families and Corporate Bodies Associated with a Manifestation.  
Other relationships in that chapter are Producer of an Unpublished 
Resource, Distributor, Manufacturer.  These are relationships which can 
be recorded as either identifiers or authorized access points; they are 
quite distinct from the Publisher's Name [etc.] elements in Chapter 2.  
Although there are cases in which RDA (and FRBR) treats an element as 
only a descriptive element or only a relationship, in this case, RDA 
supports both.  And I agree that we need both options more generally in RDA.


John Attig
Authority Control Librarian
Penn  State University
jx...@psu.edu

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[Karen Coyle]

Quoting John Attig :


Second, there are some relationships that are part of the RDA  
element structure that do not have designators.  "Publisher" is one  
of these.  This is an element in RDA and (therefore?) does not have  
a designator in Appendix I.


I noticed this a while back. I assumed it was intentional because  
"publisher" is represented with a transcribed text, not a Group2  
entity. you could actually have both, with the RDA Manifestation  
element being for the transcribed text, and an Expression - to -  
Group2 relationship if someone wants to treat the publisher as a  
corporate body (presumably with an authority record). It would be nice  
to have both options.


kc


Because an access point for this element cannot be identified by  
MARC 21 tagging, I have argued to the JSC that the only way to  
identify that an access point represents a publisher is to use the  
MARC 21 relator term "publisher" in subfield $e.  This is certainly  
valid MARC and I would argue that it is valid RDA.  [I have also  
recommended that these "element-level" relationships be included as  
explicit designators in the RDA "role" element set in the Open  
Metadata Registry. In the long run, this may be more important that  
how we fudge this in MARC.]


John Attig
ALA Representative to the JSC
jx...@psu.edu

On 11/9/2011 1:49 PM, Christopher Winters wrote:
I've presided over the creation of more than 2400 RDA records for  
sheet maps over the last 13 months at the University of Chicago  
Library. Relationship designators have given us more problems than  
any other aspect of RDA, and (like the book catalogers here) we  
stopped using them a couple of months after the test period ended.  
LC, I notice, did not use them even during the test period. The  
problems are:
[1]  As others have pointed out, it's often just not very clear  
what the "creators" did. You've got to pretend to know more than  
you do. This is probably never a very good idea in cataloging work.
[2] The official relationship designators do not fit the actual  
functions of map production very well. There is a particular  
problem with corporate creators, who are often publishers. But  
"publisher" is not one of the official relationship designators,  
and "issuing body" doesn't really seem like the right term for  
corporate publishers.
[3] It's common in cartographic materials for the source of the  
data to be a different person or body from the mapmaker. We pushed  
the envelope a bit and started using "source of data" as a  
relationship designator.
I completely agree with those who find the relationship designators  
so problematic as to doubt their value.

Chris Winters
Christopher Winters
Bibliographer for Anthropology, Geography, and Maps
University of Chiago Library

*From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and  
Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell  
[robert_maxw...@byu.edu]

*Sent:* Wednesday, November 09, 2011 12:03 PM
*To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic  
Framework statement


I’ve been assigning relator terms for years under AACR2 in my  
cataloging so I guess I’m just used to it—yes, it takes a little  
extra time, but I think the benefits to our users of spelling out  
the relationship of the person/corporate body/family to the  
resource far outweigh the extra thought and entry time. I  
personally (and yes, I am a practicing cataloger) find the extra  
time and effort to be negligible.


N.B. I’m glad the relationship indicators are getting renewed  
emphasis under RDA, but this isn’t a new issue with RDA.  
Relationship indicators were allowed under AACR2 and previous codes  
(see AACR2 21.0D) and have been widely and fairly consistently used  
during all that time in many cataloging communities, including the  
rare materials cataloging community, in spite of LC’s decision at  
implementation of AACR2 not to use them in most cases.


Bob

Robert L. Maxwell

Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian

Genre/Form Authorities Librarian

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 *Billie  
Hackney

*Sent:* Wednesday, November 09, 2011 10:53 AM
*To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic  
Framework statement


Determining that there is a contributor and providing a fast access  
point is much easier and quicker than figuring out all of the ways  
that a person or organization contributed, looking up the terms in  
the poorly presente

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[Karen Coyle]

Quoting Benjamin A Abrahamse :

Re: Karen Coyle, "If we truly move into an entity-relationship model  
for our data, the option of adding "access points" without the  
relationship will go away. The relationship is what connects the  
Group2 entity with the Group1 entity. There will be no other way to  
code it."


A neophyte question: why couldn't one define relationships in a way  
that resembles the qualified DC model, e.g.:


[work][has contributor author][xxx]
[work][has contributor editor][xxx]
[work][has contributor illustrator][xxx]
etc.


If I understand your question, in fact the definition of the terms in  
the Open Metadata Registry accomplishes this, just using a different  
mechanism. So rather than combining the broader term and the narrower  
term in a single data element, the narrower term is defined as being  
NT to the BT in a machine-readable record that is in the Registry.  
This is the linked data way of doing things, and even Dublin Core is  
now using this method. It appears to accomplish the same thing.


kc



so that libraries and systems that want to use relators can code  
them properly, while libraries/systems that want not to make full  
use of the encoded relators can simulate, as it were, the  
functionality of 1xx and 7xx's?  Or is that not desirable for some  
reason?


-- b

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and  
Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle

Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 2:43 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic  
Framework statement


Quoting "Layne, Sara" :



Roles may not be precisely defined. A person or body may have
multiple roles. Catalogers using AACR2 are accustomed to applying
their judgment to the yes/no question of whether a person or body
has a role that calls for an access point-- to define precisely the
role or roles that person or body plays requires additional
intellectual effort.


If we truly move into an entity-relationship model for our data, the
option of adding "access points" without the relationship will go
away. The relationship is what connects the Group2 entity with the
Group1 entity. There will be no other way to code it. (I'm thinking of
doing a short pen-cast on this point since it is important; will post
here if I do.)

Essentially, the E-R model requires you to say:

[this Work] [has author] [Person123]
[this Expression] [has illustrator] [Person789]

It's not a 100 field with a role code added to it; the thing we think
of as the role code *is* the actual connector, and the statement
cannot be made without it. This isn't rocket science, and it's a
fairly common practice in metadata, where the data elements tell you
what the role is, e.g.

for resourceABC:
author = Person123
editor = Person789
publisher = Corp876

MARC doesn't do this because MARC does not use "active voice" data
elements. Instead it is a markup of a textual format and its data
elements reference the placement of the text over the meaning
(although in some cases they coincide). "Main entry" is a relationship
between a string and a record, it is not a statement of how that
person relates to the work being described.

That said, there is no reason why RDA cannot have a set of generic
roles when determining the exact role is not worth while. Because of
its adherence to FRBR, that would need to be a small set of roles,
such as:

Work:Creator
Expression:Contributor
Manifestation:Producer [or whatever JSC decides]

so you could say:

[this Work] [has creator] [Person123]

and you haven't said if the creator is a writer, a composer or an
artist. That is similar to what we have today in MARC, where a 1xx
without a role requires the user to fill in the blank. We don't tell
users that Beethoven is a composer, or that John Updike is a writer.

Again, if our future bibliographic framework is an E-R model, "roles"
as we think of them today are not optional. In MARC they are, but MARC
is not an E-R model. If this doesn't work for catalogers, then one has
to go back and re-think everything from FRBR through RDA.

kc



And, in my experience, especially for corporate bodies, it can be
time-consuming to ferret out precisely what the role(s) are.

I don't think this increase in intellectual effort is dependent on
the use of a particular coding scheme or interface. It is inherent
in the work. And yes, the need for specifying roles in RDA does
appear to be a result of attempting to catalog in terms of FRBR
entities.

Sara

Sara Shatford Layne
Principal Cataloger
UCLA Library Cataloging & Metadata Center
sla...@library.ucla.edu


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Wednesday, November 09

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

Re: Karen Coyle, "If we truly move into an entity-relationship model for our 
data, the option of adding "access points" without the relationship will go 
away. The relationship is what connects the Group2 entity with the Group1 
entity. There will be no other way to code it."

A neophyte question: why couldn't one define relationships in a way that 
resembles the qualified DC model, e.g.:

[work][has contributor author][xxx] 
[work][has contributor editor][xxx]
[work][has contributor illustrator][xxx]
etc.

so that libraries and systems that want to use relators can code them properly, 
while libraries/systems that want not to make full use of the encoded relators 
can simulate, as it were, the functionality of 1xx and 7xx's?  Or is that not 
desirable for some reason?

-- b

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 2:43 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework 
statement

Quoting "Layne, Sara" :

>
> Roles may not be precisely defined. A person or body may have  
> multiple roles. Catalogers using AACR2 are accustomed to applying  
> their judgment to the yes/no question of whether a person or body  
> has a role that calls for an access point-- to define precisely the  
> role or roles that person or body plays requires additional  
> intellectual effort.

If we truly move into an entity-relationship model for our data, the  
option of adding "access points" without the relationship will go  
away. The relationship is what connects the Group2 entity with the  
Group1 entity. There will be no other way to code it. (I'm thinking of  
doing a short pen-cast on this point since it is important; will post  
here if I do.)

Essentially, the E-R model requires you to say:

[this Work] [has author] [Person123]
[this Expression] [has illustrator] [Person789]

It's not a 100 field with a role code added to it; the thing we think  
of as the role code *is* the actual connector, and the statement  
cannot be made without it. This isn't rocket science, and it's a  
fairly common practice in metadata, where the data elements tell you  
what the role is, e.g.

for resourceABC:
author = Person123
editor = Person789
publisher = Corp876

MARC doesn't do this because MARC does not use "active voice" data  
elements. Instead it is a markup of a textual format and its data  
elements reference the placement of the text over the meaning  
(although in some cases they coincide). "Main entry" is a relationship  
between a string and a record, it is not a statement of how that  
person relates to the work being described.

That said, there is no reason why RDA cannot have a set of generic  
roles when determining the exact role is not worth while. Because of  
its adherence to FRBR, that would need to be a small set of roles,  
such as:

Work:Creator
Expression:Contributor
Manifestation:Producer [or whatever JSC decides]

so you could say:

[this Work] [has creator] [Person123]

and you haven't said if the creator is a writer, a composer or an  
artist. That is similar to what we have today in MARC, where a 1xx  
without a role requires the user to fill in the blank. We don't tell  
users that Beethoven is a composer, or that John Updike is a writer.

Again, if our future bibliographic framework is an E-R model, "roles"  
as we think of them today are not optional. In MARC they are, but MARC  
is not an E-R model. If this doesn't work for catalogers, then one has  
to go back and re-think everything from FRBR through RDA.

kc


> And, in my experience, especially for corporate bodies, it can be  
> time-consuming to ferret out precisely what the role(s) are.
>
> I don't think this increase in intellectual effort is dependent on  
> the use of a particular coding scheme or interface. It is inherent  
> in the work. And yes, the need for specifying roles in RDA does  
> appear to be a result of attempting to catalog in terms of FRBR  
> entities.
>
> Sara
>
> Sara Shatford Layne
> Principal Cataloger
> UCLA Library Cataloging & Metadata Center
> sla...@library.ucla.edu
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and  
> Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 9:18 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic  
> Framework statement
>
> Quoting Billie Hackney :
>
>> I apologize for being testy.
>
> Accepted. We all get frustrated.
>
>> It's just that anything that catalogers themselves say about the
>> difficulties they've experiences with RDA seem to be passed over and
>> ignored during all of this theoretical discussion 

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[Laurence Creider]

I don't think you need apologize for anything.  You did not introduce 
sarcasm and disrespect into the discussion.


--
Laurence S. Creider
Interim Head,
Archives and Special Collections Dept.
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 575-646-4756
Fax: 575-646-7477
lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu


On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, Billie Hackney wrote:


I apologize for being testy.  It's just that anything that catalogers
themselves say about the difficulties they've experiences with RDA seem to
be passed over and ignored during all of this theoretical discussion on why
RDA is so wonderful. Being told that assigning relator terms is easy when
it's not is rather frustrating.
 
 
Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edu

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[Karen Coyle]

Quoting John Attig :




On 11/9/2011 2:43 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:

If we truly move into an entity-relationship model for our data, . . .


You could equally have same "if we truly move into a linked-data  
model for our data".  My understanding is that an indispensable  
piece of any linked data specification is the predicate -- which is  
the relationship designator turned into a verb.


Yes, I think that for this discussion this is true. There are  
differences, like: E-R doesn't require the use of identifiers, but LD  
does. FRBR defines an E-R model, which is kind of a precursor to  
linked data, and at this date, linked data is the direction folks are  
going in.




On the other hand, you don't have to use the most specific  
relationship designator available.  I suspect that many will be  
satisfied with "creator" and "contributor" and avoid being more  
specific.  Because there are well-defined hierarchies, this  
difference in granularity shouldn't be an obstacle to  
interoperability.


I agree. The RDA definition of "contributor" is:

"A person, family, or corporate body contributing to the realization  
of a work through an expression. Contributors include editors,  
translators, arrangers of music, performers, etc. " (from the  
registry, not the toolkit text)


So use of this term depends entirely on its acceptance as part of the  
RDA standard, and the development of "best practices" as we go forward.


There are many levels of granularity, such as:

1. Contributor
1.1 Composer (Expression)
1.11 Composer of Music for Silent Film (Expression)
1.11 Composer of Music for Sound Film (Expression)

I don't know if RDA gives any advice about moving up and down the  
granularity tree when assigning roles, but presumably few data  
producers are expected to provide the lowest level of detail.


Note that in the registry[1] the hierarchy of roles is coded although  
it isn't easily visible (we need a good visualization, to say the  
least) but every Composer (Expression) is a Contributor, and by  
inference so are the ones marked 1.11, so it should be correct to use  
"Contributor" for all of these. Communities should be able to provide  
the level of granularity that they find useful, and others can treat  
the data with less (but not more) granularity if they so wish.


kc
[1] http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/list/schema_id/4.html



John






--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[John Attig]

Several comments here:

First, the JSC recognizes that the list of "official" designators is 
incomplete, and that the ones relevant to cartographic resources are 
probably inadequate.  This was also recognized in the report of the US 
RDA Test Coordinating Committee.  The JSC very much wants proposals for 
additional designators, and the cartographic resources community is 
definitely one they would like to hear from.


Second, there are some relationships that are part of the RDA element 
structure that do not have designators.  "Publisher" is one of these.  
This is an element in RDA and (therefore?) does not have a designator in 
Appendix I.  Because an access point for this element cannot be 
identified by MARC 21 tagging, I have argued to the JSC that the only 
way to identify that an access point represents a publisher is to use 
the MARC 21 relator term "publisher" in subfield $e.  This is certainly 
valid MARC and I would argue that it is valid RDA.  [I have also 
recommended that these "element-level" relationships be included as 
explicit designators in the RDA "role" element set in the Open Metadata 
Registry. In the long run, this may be more important that how we fudge 
this in MARC.]


John Attig
ALA Representative to the JSC
jx...@psu.edu

On 11/9/2011 1:49 PM, Christopher Winters wrote:
I've presided over the creation of more than 2400 RDA records for 
sheet maps over the last 13 months at the University of Chicago 
Library. Relationship designators have given us more problems than any 
other aspect of RDA, and (like the book catalogers here) we stopped 
using them a couple of months after the test period ended. LC, I 
notice, did not use them even during the test period. The problems are:
[1]  As others have pointed out, it's often just not very clear what 
the "creators" did. You've got to pretend to know more than you do. 
This is probably never a very good idea in cataloging work.
[2] The official relationship designators do not fit the actual 
functions of map production very well. There is a particular problem 
with corporate creators, who are often publishers. But "publisher" is 
not one of the official relationship designators, and "issuing body" 
doesn't really seem like the right term for corporate publishers.
[3] It's common in cartographic materials for the source of the 
data to be a different person or body from the mapmaker. We pushed the 
envelope a bit and started using "source of data" as a relationship 
designator.
I completely agree with those who find the relationship designators so 
problematic as to doubt their value.

Chris Winters
Christopher Winters
Bibliographer for Anthropology, Geography, and Maps
University of Chiago Library

*From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and 
Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell 
[robert_maxw...@byu.edu]

*Sent:* Wednesday, November 09, 2011 12:03 PM
*To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic 
Framework statement


I’ve been assigning relator terms for years under AACR2 in my 
cataloging so I guess I’m just used to it—yes, it takes a little extra 
time, but I think the benefits to our users of spelling out the 
relationship of the person/corporate body/family to the resource far 
outweigh the extra thought and entry time. I personally (and yes, I am 
a practicing cataloger) find the extra time and effort to be negligible.


N.B. I’m glad the relationship indicators are getting renewed emphasis 
under RDA, but this isn’t a new issue with RDA. Relationship 
indicators were allowed under AACR2 and previous codes (see AACR2 
21.0D) and have been widely and fairly consistently used during all 
that time in many cataloging communities, including the rare materials 
cataloging community, in spite of LC’s decision at implementation of 
AACR2 not to use them in most cases.


Bob

Robert L. Maxwell

Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian

Genre/Form Authorities Librarian

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 *Billie Hackney

*Sent:* Wednesday, November 09, 2011 10:53 AM
*To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic 
Framework statement


Determining that there is a contributor and providing a fast access 
point is much easier and quicker than figuring out all of the ways 
that a person or organization contributed, looking up the terms in 
the poorly presented and designed list in the RDA toolkit, and then 
typing them all in.  When we were doing or

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[Karen Coyle]

Quoting "Layne, Sara" :



Roles may not be precisely defined. A person or body may have  
multiple roles. Catalogers using AACR2 are accustomed to applying  
their judgment to the yes/no question of whether a person or body  
has a role that calls for an access point-- to define precisely the  
role or roles that person or body plays requires additional  
intellectual effort.


If we truly move into an entity-relationship model for our data, the  
option of adding "access points" without the relationship will go  
away. The relationship is what connects the Group2 entity with the  
Group1 entity. There will be no other way to code it. (I'm thinking of  
doing a short pen-cast on this point since it is important; will post  
here if I do.)


Essentially, the E-R model requires you to say:

[this Work] [has author] [Person123]
[this Expression] [has illustrator] [Person789]

It's not a 100 field with a role code added to it; the thing we think  
of as the role code *is* the actual connector, and the statement  
cannot be made without it. This isn't rocket science, and it's a  
fairly common practice in metadata, where the data elements tell you  
what the role is, e.g.


for resourceABC:
author = Person123
editor = Person789
publisher = Corp876

MARC doesn't do this because MARC does not use "active voice" data  
elements. Instead it is a markup of a textual format and its data  
elements reference the placement of the text over the meaning  
(although in some cases they coincide). "Main entry" is a relationship  
between a string and a record, it is not a statement of how that  
person relates to the work being described.


That said, there is no reason why RDA cannot have a set of generic  
roles when determining the exact role is not worth while. Because of  
its adherence to FRBR, that would need to be a small set of roles,  
such as:


Work:Creator
Expression:Contributor
Manifestation:Producer [or whatever JSC decides]

so you could say:

[this Work] [has creator] [Person123]

and you haven't said if the creator is a writer, a composer or an  
artist. That is similar to what we have today in MARC, where a 1xx  
without a role requires the user to fill in the blank. We don't tell  
users that Beethoven is a composer, or that John Updike is a writer.


Again, if our future bibliographic framework is an E-R model, "roles"  
as we think of them today are not optional. In MARC they are, but MARC  
is not an E-R model. If this doesn't work for catalogers, then one has  
to go back and re-think everything from FRBR through RDA.


kc


And, in my experience, especially for corporate bodies, it can be  
time-consuming to ferret out precisely what the role(s) are.


I don't think this increase in intellectual effort is dependent on  
the use of a particular coding scheme or interface. It is inherent  
in the work. And yes, the need for specifying roles in RDA does  
appear to be a result of attempting to catalog in terms of FRBR  
entities.


Sara

Sara Shatford Layne
Principal Cataloger
UCLA Library Cataloging & Metadata Center
sla...@library.ucla.edu


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and  
Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle

Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 9:18 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic  
Framework statement


Quoting Billie Hackney :


I apologize for being testy.


Accepted. We all get frustrated.


It's just that anything that catalogers themselves say about the
difficulties they've experiences with RDA seem to be passed over and
ignored during all of this theoretical discussion on why RDA is so
wonderful. Being told that assigning relator terms is easy when it's
not is rather frustrating.


Assigning relator terms in MARC is not easy. That's the point. But the
intellectual work of determining the role is, I believe, the same in
AACR2 and RDA. So what it comes down to is how hard it is to convey
that in the record. I think the MARC coding of this is awkward and
interfaces don't make it easier.

I doubt if any cataloger includes a name in a record without some idea
of the role the person plays. However, if there is a need to include
"miscellaneous" persons, there is no reason why such a relationship
should not be allowed (that's up to the JSC). Note, however, that you
will still, as Thomas B has stated, be using the FRBR entities that
require you to separate out work, expression and manifestation roles,
so some thinking about what the role is becomes (a perhaps painful)
part of the process.

I think that MARC is getting in the way of our ability to think about
this "different."

kc




Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edu





--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[James Weinheimer]

I almost changed the subject line, but this still *seems* to concern the 
bibliographic framework, or perhaps not.


Of course, relator codes require more work than not assigning them. That 
is a simple fact that no one can dispute. The question is: are they 
worth it?


This is not the sort of question that can be answered with a simple 
"Yes, I think so" or "No, I don't think so". Different aspects must be 
considered first. The first fact that must be accepted is that the old 
records will not be upgraded and this has consequences for everything else.


First, will the relator codes be indexed for searching, i.e. will people 
be able to limit their searches to "editors" or "compilers" or 
"contestee" or "process contact"? I certainly hope not since the results 
will be unpredictable. Therefore, if the codes are not there for 
searching, what are they there for? There seems to be only one answer: 
for display.


Another aspect must be to see matters from the public's viewpoint. That 
viewpoint certainly should never be ignored. Since the old records will 
never be upgraded to add relator codes, they will see records with 
relator codes and records without relator codes all mixed together in 
every single search they do. What will be the correct way for a 
non-expert to approach them? Therefore, they will see, in every search, 
in one record, made post-RDA, there will be a relator code for a 
specific role, but in another record, pre-RDA, there will not be a 
relator code for exactly that same role. What then, is the purpose of 
the relator code? How can we keep them from being confused? How should 
people approach our records then, and how do we inform people what they 
should and shouldn't believe concerning the relator codes? What are the 
best ways to use them and what are poor ways? And remember, these will 
be exactly the same people who can't be expected to know what "p." or 
"ill." mean!


Naturally, another important aspect of the matter is the amount of work 
and the effects on productivity. When an experienced cataloger says that 
it has a noticeable effect on productivity, that statement should simply 
be accepted. It is in the nature of things that there will be easy items 
in English, just as we still get new editions of "The old man and the 
sea" and with very little work, we can count it as an original catalog 
record in our statistics. But there are other materials that are not in 
English, strange items with unclear roles that demand time. These kinds 
of strange roles can only get stranger with online materials.


It seems that there will be serious consequences both to catalogers and 
the public. This is normal when you decide to add new parts to the basic 
functions to the catalog. The only way to answer these considerations is 
to do at least some amount of research and find out if the consequences 
are worth the effort. Otherwise, we dive into the effort armed only with 
suppositions based on limited knowledge and personal beliefs.


Of course, in a regular business environment this sort of research would 
have been done at a very early stage, not at the very end.


--
James Weinheimer  weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[Elizabeth O'Keefe]

I have mixed feelings about this discussion. We are heavy users of relator terms (we don't use the codes).  This is partially because many of the items we catalogue, such as art works and manuscripts,  are unpublished and do not have statements of responsibility. If we didn't add relator terms to the headings, users would be reduced to scouring through the many notes on our records to figure out what is the relationship between the item and all the names that appear under the "Associated Names" label. I'm not sure that adding relator terms for items where the responsibilities are clearly spelled out in a statement of responsibility (e.g. by X; edited by Y; compiled by Z), or do not differ all that much except in degree (editor versus compiler) would be as useful. 
 
Adding relator terms does require additional time, both for the cataloger and for those in charge of cataloging (new catalogers have to be trained in the use of relator terms, policies have to be set on the sources we use and how specific to be; if terms do not exist, we have to submit them to the relevant source.) We do this as an act of faith that someday, somehow, systems will be able to handle this data in a meaningful way, and use it in ways that will promote discovery and access.  
 
Some of the complications we encounter when supplying relator terms: Our system (Voyager 8) doesn't have a good way of handling multiple roles, which occur very frequently in our collections: Composer and librettist
Printer and publisherAuthor and illustrator (or artist)
Author, annotator, former owner, and donor
Binder and former owner
(well, you get the picture)
 
Degree of specificity:
 
We have a large graphic arts collection, so we prefer more specific terms, such as "painter/engraver/illustrator/illuminator/etc." as opposed to the generic term "artist". We would actually use etcher, lithographer or woodcutter if the item described warrants it. We probably wouldn't care as much about differentiating between author/editor/compiler/prefacer (?) of a textual work. But in a world of shared cataloging and pooled records, shouldn't we all be operating at the same level of specificity?
 
Coding of source of relator term: It is currently not possible in MARC to indicate the source of a relator term. We use relator terms from the MARC list, from AAT, from the RBMS vocabularies and from "local" sources. It would be nice to be able to specify the source.
 
All these difficulties notwithstanding, we are committed to continue applying these terms. RDA's focus on relator terms is welcomed by us, if it leads to systems being able to utilize them better. But I'm not sure that relator terms will be as useful for other collections, even after the systems are in place.
 
Liz O'Keefe
 
Elizabeth O'KeefeDirector of Collection Information SystemsThe Morgan Library & Museum225 Madison AvenueNew York, NY  10016-3405 TEL: 212 590-0380FAX: 212-768-5680NET: eoke...@themorgan.org
 
Visit CORSAIR, the Library’s comprehensive collections catalog, now onthe web athttp://corsair.themorgan.org
>>> Elizabeth O'Keefe 11/9/2011 12:27 PM >> Billie Hackney  11/9/2011 12:53 PM >>>

Determining that there is a contributor and providing a fast access point is much easier and quicker than figuring out all of the ways that a person or organization contributed, looking up the terms in the poorly presented and designed list in the RDA toolkit, and then typing them all in.  When we were doing original cataloging in RDA here, it was definitely the element of the work that took up most of the group's time -- it wasn't just me. 
 
Perhaps it is just a difficulty associated with original cataloging of the type of materials we do here, and all of the other testers didn't experience the same difficulty that we did?  Everyone else found assigning multiple relator terms easy?
 
 
Billie HackneySenior Monograph CatalogerGetty Research Institute1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688(310) 440-7616bhack...@getty.edu>>> John Attig  11/9/2011 9:42 AM >>>Billie, I think part of Karen's point is that the intellectual analysis and decision-making is mostly the same whether you are determining which name to put in the 1XX and which in the 7XXs or assigning relationship designators.  Compared with that intellectual process, the actual keying of the designators is rather modest.I would hope that no one undervalues that intellectual work -- at least they shouldn't.  And I would hope that one of the functions of RDA is to provide a more robust set of ways in which you can record the conclusions you draw from that intellectual work and convey the information to the users of your records.        John Attig        Authority Control Librarian        Penn State University        jx...@psu.eduOn 11/9/2011 12:09 PM, Billie Hackney wrote: 


I apologize for being testy.  It's just that anything that catalogers themselves say about the difficulties they've experience

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[Christopher Winters]

I've presided over the creation of more than 2400 RDA records for sheet maps 
over the last 13 months at the University of Chicago Library. Relationship 
designators have given us more problems than any other aspect of RDA, and (like 
the book catalogers here) we stopped using them a couple of months after the 
test period ended. LC, I notice, did not use them even during the test period. 
The problems are:

[1]  As others have pointed out, it's often just not very clear what the 
"creators" did. You've got to pretend to know more than you do. This is 
probably never a very good idea in cataloging work.

[2] The official relationship designators do not fit the actual functions of 
map production very well. There is a particular problem with corporate 
creators, who are often publishers. But "publisher" is not one of the official 
relationship designators, and "issuing body" doesn't really seem like the right 
term for corporate publishers.

[3] It's common in cartographic materials for the source of the data to be a 
different person or body from the mapmaker. We pushed the envelope a bit and 
started using "source of data" as a relationship designator.

I completely agree with those who find the relationship designators so 
problematic as to doubt their value.

Chris Winters

Christopher Winters
Bibliographer for Anthropology, Geography, and Maps
University of Chiago Library


From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell 
[robert_maxw...@byu.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 12:03 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework 
statement

I’ve been assigning relator terms for years under AACR2 in my cataloging so I 
guess I’m just used to it—yes, it takes a little extra time, but I think the 
benefits to our users of spelling out the relationship of the person/corporate 
body/family to the resource far outweigh the extra thought and entry time. I 
personally (and yes, I am a practicing cataloger) find the extra time and 
effort to be negligible.
N.B. I’m glad the relationship indicators are getting renewed emphasis under 
RDA, but this isn’t a new issue with RDA. Relationship indicators were allowed 
under AACR2 and previous codes (see AACR2 21.0D) and have been widely and 
fairly consistently used during all that time in many cataloging communities, 
including the rare materials cataloging community, in spite of LC’s decision at 
implementation of AACR2 not to use them in most cases.
Bob
Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
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 Billie Hackney
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 10:53 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework 
statement

Determining that there is a contributor and providing a fast access point is 
much easier and quicker than figuring out all of the ways that a person or 
organization contributed, looking up the terms in the poorly presented and 
designed list in the RDA toolkit, and then typing them all in.  When we were 
doing original cataloging in RDA here, it was definitely the element of the 
work that took up most of the group's time -- it wasn't just me.

Perhaps it is just a difficulty associated with original cataloging of the type 
of materials we do here, and all of the other testers didn't experience the 
same difficulty that we did?  Everyone else found assigning multiple relator 
terms easy?



Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edu
>>> John Attig mailto:jx...@psu.edu>> 11/9/2011 9:42 AM >>>
Billie, I think part of Karen's point is that the intellectual analysis and 
decision-making is mostly the same whether you are determining which name to 
put in the 1XX and which in the 7XXs or assigning relationship designators.  
Compared with that intellectual process, the actual keying of the designators 
is rather modest.

I would hope that no one undervalues that intellectual work -- at least they 
shouldn't.  And I would hope that one of the functions of RDA is to provide a 
more robust set of ways in which you can record the conclusions you draw from 
that intellectual work and convey the information to the users of your records.

John Attig
Authority Control Librarian
Penn State University
jx...@psu.edu

On 11

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[Robert Maxwell]

I've been assigning relator terms for years under AACR2 in my cataloging so I 
guess I'm just used to it-yes, it takes a little extra time, but I think the 
benefits to our users of spelling out the relationship of the person/corporate 
body/family to the resource far outweigh the extra thought and entry time. I 
personally (and yes, I am a practicing cataloger) find the extra time and 
effort to be negligible.
N.B. I'm glad the relationship indicators are getting renewed emphasis under 
RDA, but this isn't a new issue with RDA. Relationship indicators were allowed 
under AACR2 and previous codes (see AACR2 21.0D) and have been widely and 
fairly consistently used during all that time in many cataloging communities, 
including the rare materials cataloging community, in spite of LC's decision at 
implementation of AACR2 not to use them in most cases.
Bob
Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
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 Billie Hackney
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 10:53 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework 
statement

Determining that there is a contributor and providing a fast access point is 
much easier and quicker than figuring out all of the ways that a person or 
organization contributed, looking up the terms in the poorly presented and 
designed list in the RDA toolkit, and then typing them all in.  When we were 
doing original cataloging in RDA here, it was definitely the element of the 
work that took up most of the group's time -- it wasn't just me.

Perhaps it is just a difficulty associated with original cataloging of the type 
of materials we do here, and all of the other testers didn't experience the 
same difficulty that we did?  Everyone else found assigning multiple relator 
terms easy?



Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edu
>>> John Attig mailto:jx...@psu.edu>> 11/9/2011 9:42 AM >>>
Billie, I think part of Karen's point is that the intellectual analysis and 
decision-making is mostly the same whether you are determining which name to 
put in the 1XX and which in the 7XXs or assigning relationship designators.  
Compared with that intellectual process, the actual keying of the designators 
is rather modest.

I would hope that no one undervalues that intellectual work -- at least they 
shouldn't.  And I would hope that one of the functions of RDA is to provide a 
more robust set of ways in which you can record the conclusions you draw from 
that intellectual work and convey the information to the users of your records.

John Attig
Authority Control Librarian
Penn State University
jx...@psu.edu

On 11/9/2011 12:09 PM, Billie Hackney wrote:
I apologize for being testy.  It's just that anything that catalogers 
themselves say about the difficulties they've experiences with RDA seem to be 
passed over and ignored during all of this theoretical discussion on why RDA is 
so wonderful. Being told that assigning relator terms is easy when it's not is 
rather frustrating.


Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edu

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[Billie Hackney]

Determining that there is a contributor and providing a fast access point is 
much easier and quicker than figuring out all of the ways that a person or 
organization contributed, looking up the terms in the poorly presented and 
designed list in the RDA toolkit, and then typing them all in.  When we were 
doing original cataloging in RDA here, it was definitely the element of the 
work that took up most of the group's time -- it wasn't just me. 
 
Perhaps it is just a difficulty associated with original cataloging of the type 
of materials we do here, and all of the other testers didn't experience the 
same difficulty that we did?  Everyone else found assigning multiple relator 
terms easy?

 
 
Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edu
>>> John Attig  11/9/2011 9:42 AM >>>
Billie, I think part of Karen's point is that the intellectual analysis and 
decision-making is mostly the same whether you are determining which name to 
put in the 1XX and which in the 7XXs or assigning relationship designators.  
Compared with that intellectual process, the actual keying of the designators 
is rather modest.

I would hope that no one undervalues that intellectual work -- at least they 
shouldn't.  And I would hope that one of the functions of RDA is to provide a 
more robust set of ways in which you can record the conclusions you draw from 
that intellectual work and convey the information to the users of your records.

John Attig
Authority Control Librarian
Penn State University
jx...@psu.edu

On 11/9/2011 12:09 PM, Billie Hackney wrote: 


I apologize for being testy.  It's just that anything that catalogers 
themselves say about the difficulties they've experiences with RDA seem to be 
passed over and ignored during all of this theoretical discussion on why RDA is 
so wonderful. Being told that assigning relator terms is easy when it's not is 
rather frustrating.
 
 
Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edu

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[J. McRee Elrod]

Benjamin said:

>It strikes me that perhaps two slightly different questions of "work
>required by relators" are being conflated in this discussion... One
>is the work of encoding relators, the other the work of determining
>how contributors are related to works ...

There is also the situation in which one person or group has more than
one relationship to the work, e.g., composer and performer, author and
illustrator, director and actor, writer and producer, etc.

Is the name given two, three, or more times with different relators;
or is the relator subfield to be repeating, in this proposed new
coding scheme?  If repeating, in what order?


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[Layne, Sara]

Karen,

The intellectual work of determining the specific role(s) a person or corporate 
body has in relation to a work/expression/manifestation (RDA) is more 
difficult/complicated than the intellectual work of determining that a person 
or corporate body has *a* role in relation to a resource (AACR2). 

Roles may not be precisely defined. A person or body may have multiple roles. 
Catalogers using AACR2 are accustomed to applying their judgment to the yes/no 
question of whether a person or body has a role that calls for an access 
point-- to define precisely the role or roles that person or body plays 
requires additional intellectual effort. And, in my experience, especially for 
corporate bodies, it can be time-consuming to ferret out precisely what the 
role(s) are.

I don't think this increase in intellectual effort is dependent on the use of a 
particular coding scheme or interface. It is inherent in the work. And yes, the 
need for specifying roles in RDA does appear to be a result of attempting to 
catalog in terms of FRBR entities.

Sara

Sara Shatford Layne
Principal Cataloger
UCLA Library Cataloging & Metadata Center
sla...@library.ucla.edu


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 9:18 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework 
statement

Quoting Billie Hackney :

> I apologize for being testy.

Accepted. We all get frustrated.

> It's just that anything that catalogers themselves say about the  
> difficulties they've experiences with RDA seem to be passed over and  
> ignored during all of this theoretical discussion on why RDA is so  
> wonderful. Being told that assigning relator terms is easy when it's  
> not is rather frustrating.

Assigning relator terms in MARC is not easy. That's the point. But the  
intellectual work of determining the role is, I believe, the same in  
AACR2 and RDA. So what it comes down to is how hard it is to convey  
that in the record. I think the MARC coding of this is awkward and  
interfaces don't make it easier.

I doubt if any cataloger includes a name in a record without some idea  
of the role the person plays. However, if there is a need to include  
"miscellaneous" persons, there is no reason why such a relationship  
should not be allowed (that's up to the JSC). Note, however, that you  
will still, as Thomas B has stated, be using the FRBR entities that  
require you to separate out work, expression and manifestation roles,  
so some thinking about what the role is becomes (a perhaps painful)  
part of the process.

I think that MARC is getting in the way of our ability to think about  
this "different."

kc

>
>
> Billie Hackney
> Senior Monograph Cataloger
> Getty Research Institute
> 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
> Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
> (310) 440-7616
> bhack...@getty.edu
>



-- 
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[John Attig]

Billie, I think part of Karen's point is that the intellectual analysis 
and decision-making is mostly the same whether you are determining which 
name to put in the 1XX and which in the 7XXs or assigning relationship 
designators.  Compared with that intellectual process, the actual keying 
of the designators is rather modest.


I would hope that no one undervalues that intellectual work -- at least 
they shouldn't.  And I would hope that one of the functions of RDA is to 
provide a more robust set of ways in which you can record the 
conclusions you draw from that intellectual work and convey the 
information to the users of your records.


John Attig
Authority Control Librarian
Penn State University
jx...@psu.edu

On 11/9/2011 12:09 PM, Billie Hackney wrote:
I apologize for being testy.  It's just that anything that catalogers 
themselves say about the difficulties they've experiences with 
RDA seem to be passed over and ignored during all of this theoretical 
discussion on why RDA is so wonderful. Being told that assigning 
relator terms is easy when it's not is rather frustrating.

Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edu

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

It strikes me that perhaps two slightly different questions of "work required 
by relators" are being conflated in this discussion... which may why it is 
generating more heat than light.
One is the work of encoding relators, the other the work of determining how 
contributors are related to works, which (pace Coyle) is not always easy to do 
unequivocally-particularly if we are talking about cataloging all materials and 
not just recently-published, textual monographs.  Cataloger time invested in 
the encoding of relators can likely be minimized by better interfaces and 
encoding schemes; whereas I cannot see how cataloger time invested in 
determining what kind of contributor a given entity is going to be reduced 
through any improvements to encoding schemas or interfaces.
In other words, the question, or at least one question would be: is, or should 
"relationship designation" be a core RDA element?  What are the tradeoffs 
between having consistent, rich metadata, and making sure catalogers are 
investing their time effectively?  I did not participate in the RDA test, but 
from my reading of RDA chapter 18 and the LC RDA testing documents, it seems 
like it isn't.  (But I could be wrong-I'm far from an RDA expert.)

--b
Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Billie Hackney
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 11:50 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework 
statement

Hi, Karen:

I didn't realize I was mistaken about the amount of work I do for original 
cataloging of materials about art, where there are curators, editors and 
essayists, galleries that are host institutions as well as publishers, artists 
who also wrote some or all of the text, and all this often without a title page 
and in a foreign language. Thank you for enlightening me.

Billie



Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edu
>>> Karen Coyle  11/9/2011 8:33 AM >>>
Quoting Billie Hackney :

> But it *is* more work.  Adding relator terms took a lot of extra
> time while I was doing original cataloging in RDA.  I know we've
> been through the argument a number of times before, but I just don't
> understand why the creators of RDA feel that it's necessary to make
> original catalogers do *more* instead of less when nearly all of us
> are supposed to get more done with fewer catalogers.

I can't imagine how calling someone "artist" can be more work. It *is*
more work if you have to look up a role code in order to put it into a
MARC subfield, but it's only *different* work if you have:

artist: [person name]
illustrator: [person name]
composer: [person name]
conductor: [person name]

rather than 100 or 700, which only tells that you're coding a name for
a person, and then requires you to qualify it with a
less-than-intuitive code.

It must be a rare piece that doesn't tell you what role a person
plays. That piece probably takes as much to catalog today, because you
have to determine if the named person is worth including in the
record. If the role is right there before you, using it isn't more
work if we finally get beyond MARC coding and stupid input interfaces
that make people look up codes.

kc
p.s. We really need to mock up a couple of potential new input "views"
so that people can see "beyond MARC"

>
>
> Billie Hackney
> Senior Monograph Cataloger
> Getty Research Institute
> 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
> Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
> (310) 440-7616
> bhack...@getty.edu
 "Brenndorfer, Thomas" 
 11/9/2011 7:49 AM >>>
>> It is that precision (which carries forward the same amount of
>> intellectual work in traditional >cataloging-- it's not really
>> "more work") that makes the RDA element set more amenable to
>> >modern encoding and data management methods.
>
>



--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[Karen Coyle]

Quoting Billie Hackney :


I apologize for being testy.


Accepted. We all get frustrated.

It's just that anything that catalogers themselves say about the  
difficulties they've experiences with RDA seem to be passed over and  
ignored during all of this theoretical discussion on why RDA is so  
wonderful. Being told that assigning relator terms is easy when it's  
not is rather frustrating.


Assigning relator terms in MARC is not easy. That's the point. But the  
intellectual work of determining the role is, I believe, the same in  
AACR2 and RDA. So what it comes down to is how hard it is to convey  
that in the record. I think the MARC coding of this is awkward and  
interfaces don't make it easier.


I doubt if any cataloger includes a name in a record without some idea  
of the role the person plays. However, if there is a need to include  
"miscellaneous" persons, there is no reason why such a relationship  
should not be allowed (that's up to the JSC). Note, however, that you  
will still, as Thomas B has stated, be using the FRBR entities that  
require you to separate out work, expression and manifestation roles,  
so some thinking about what the role is becomes (a perhaps painful)  
part of the process.


I think that MARC is getting in the way of our ability to think about  
this "different."


kc




Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edu





--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[Billie Hackney]

I apologize for being testy.  It's just that anything that catalogers 
themselves say about the difficulties they've experiences with RDA seem to be 
passed over and ignored during all of this theoretical discussion on why RDA is 
so wonderful. Being told that assigning relator terms is easy when it's not is 
rather frustrating.
 
 
Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edu

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[J. McRee Elrod]

Thomas said:

>An artist responsible for the artistic content of the work would
>always form part of the authorized access point for the work. 

In terms of exhibition catalogues, the artist would be main entry if
reproductions exceed text, but he text author (curator) would be main
entry if text exceeds reproductions.  I assume this is true for RDA as
it is for AACR2.  

Our art library clients will not accept that.  From their point of
few, the amount of text is irrelevant.  Perhaps this is something to
be taken up in a special genre manual?

I did finally persuade Lucia Rather to instruct LC cataloguers to do a
246 for distinctive subtitle, when the artist's name was title proper,
and could be mistaken for a statement of responsibility at head of
title.  Art librarians are not as well organized as music ones, and
less adept at making their needs known.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[J. McRee Elrod]

Jim said:

>Well, I beg to differ since I don't see that mere inversion of the name
>that happens to be first on an item to be the equivalent to the selection
>of a main entry.
 
That's where it files in a single entry list.  How more "main" can it get?
 
>Certainly,  *in a bibliographic citation* a single one of all the authors
>has to come first, but not in a computerized catalog where displays are (or
>can be) much more fluid.
 
Not only must one be first for citations, but also for subject and
added entries.

>Yet, in the bibliographic citation entry for this item, it
>would be the first three to seven authors, with the first one inverted. Who
>can maintain that the first person here is equivalent to a *single main
>entry*?
 
I can.  It doesn't matter whether the additional two (Chicago Manual)
or six names are before or after the title.  That is simply a matter
of display.  The listing, citation, or entry is under the inverted
author.

>In any case, there is no reason why Johnson should be treated
>subordinately to Masters ...

except to assign a Cutter, create a single entry listing, citation, or
subject and added entries.  If Karen's idea of designating one as more
important to come first (as UTLAS once did with 6XX), I don't see how
one 100 being prime is superior to 100 and 700s.  What is gained?


>Dublin Core also avoids a single main entry. 

Which means we can crosswalk from MARC to DC very cheaply for clients,
but going back is impossible.  There are other formats we supply to
clients by crosswalk for which the same is true.  We should not
sacrifice granularity in the master record without very careful
consideration.

>Why continue this practice when there are three equal authors or
>more? 

To repeat yet again, in order to Cutter, print acquisition lists,
print subject bibliographies, print book catalogues and cards (there
are still a few), agree with scholarly citations, create subject and
added entries, among other reasons.

The absence of a main entry (by any name) creates more work than it
saves.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[Billie Hackney]

Hi, Karen:
 
I didn't realize I was mistaken about the amount of work I do for original 
cataloging of materials about art, where there are curators, editors and 
essayists, galleries that are host institutions as well as publishers, artists 
who also wrote some or all of the text, and all this often without a title page 
and in a foreign language. Thank you for enlightening me.
 
Billie

 
 
Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edu
>>> Karen Coyle  11/9/2011 8:33 AM >>>
Quoting Billie Hackney :

> But it *is* more work.  Adding relator terms took a lot of extra  
> time while I was doing original cataloging in RDA.  I know we've  
> been through the argument a number of times before, but I just don't  
> understand why the creators of RDA feel that it's necessary to make  
> original catalogers do *more* instead of less when nearly all of us  
> are supposed to get more done with fewer catalogers.

I can't imagine how calling someone "artist" can be more work. It *is*  
more work if you have to look up a role code in order to put it into a  
MARC subfield, but it's only *different* work if you have:

artist: [person name]
illustrator: [person name]
composer: [person name]
conductor: [person name]

rather than 100 or 700, which only tells that you're coding a name for  
a person, and then requires you to qualify it with a  
less-than-intuitive code.

It must be a rare piece that doesn't tell you what role a person  
plays. That piece probably takes as much to catalog today, because you  
have to determine if the named person is worth including in the  
record. If the role is right there before you, using it isn't more  
work if we finally get beyond MARC coding and stupid input interfaces  
that make people look up codes.

kc
p.s. We really need to mock up a couple of potential new input "views"  
so that people can see "beyond MARC"

>
>
> Billie Hackney
> Senior Monograph Cataloger
> Getty Research Institute
> 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
> Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
> (310) 440-7616
> bhack...@getty.edu
 "Brenndorfer, Thomas"   
 11/9/2011 7:49 AM >>>
>> It is that precision (which carries forward the same amount of  
>> intellectual work in traditional >cataloging-- it's not really  
>> "more work") that makes the RDA element set more amenable to  
>> >modern encoding and data management methods.
>
>



-- 
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[Mike Tribby]

>If we finally get beyond MARC coding and stupid input interfaces that make 
>people look up codes.

Sounds great. How do we get beyond those "stupid input interfaces"?
And an observation: sometimes "stupid" is, if not solely in the eye of the 
beholder, at least subject to differing perceptions or degrees of stupidity.


Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses

mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 10:34 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework 
statement

Quoting Billie Hackney :

> But it *is* more work.  Adding relator terms took a lot of extra time
> while I was doing original cataloging in RDA.  I know we've been
> through the argument a number of times before, but I just don't
> understand why the creators of RDA feel that it's necessary to make
> original catalogers do *more* instead of less when nearly all of us
> are supposed to get more done with fewer catalogers.

I can't imagine how calling someone "artist" can be more work. It *is* more 
work if you have to look up a role code in order to put it into a MARC 
subfield, but it's only *different* work if you have:

artist: [person name]
illustrator: [person name]
composer: [person name]
conductor: [person name]

rather than 100 or 700, which only tells that you're coding a name for a 
person, and then requires you to qualify it with a less-than-intuitive code.

It must be a rare piece that doesn't tell you what role a person plays. That 
piece probably takes as much to catalog today, because you have to determine if 
the named person is worth including in the record. If the role is right there 
before you, using it isn't more work if we finally get beyond MARC coding and 
stupid input interfaces that make people look up codes.

kc
p.s. We really need to mock up a couple of potential new input "views"
so that people can see "beyond MARC"

>
>
> Billie Hackney
> Senior Monograph Cataloger
> Getty Research Institute
> 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
> Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
> (310) 440-7616
> bhack...@getty.edu
 "Brenndorfer, Thomas" 
 11/9/2011 7:49 AM >>>
>> It is that precision (which carries forward the same amount of
>> intellectual work in traditional >cataloging-- it's not really "more
>> work") that makes the RDA element set more amenable to
>> >modern encoding and data management methods.
>
>



--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.454 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/4005 - Release Date: 11/08/11 
19:34:00

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[Karen Coyle]

Quoting Billie Hackney :

But it *is* more work.  Adding relator terms took a lot of extra  
time while I was doing original cataloging in RDA.  I know we've  
been through the argument a number of times before, but I just don't  
understand why the creators of RDA feel that it's necessary to make  
original catalogers do *more* instead of less when nearly all of us  
are supposed to get more done with fewer catalogers.


I can't imagine how calling someone "artist" can be more work. It *is*  
more work if you have to look up a role code in order to put it into a  
MARC subfield, but it's only *different* work if you have:


artist: [person name]
illustrator: [person name]
composer: [person name]
conductor: [person name]

rather than 100 or 700, which only tells that you're coding a name for  
a person, and then requires you to qualify it with a  
less-than-intuitive code.


It must be a rare piece that doesn't tell you what role a person  
plays. That piece probably takes as much to catalog today, because you  
have to determine if the named person is worth including in the  
record. If the role is right there before you, using it isn't more  
work if we finally get beyond MARC coding and stupid input interfaces  
that make people look up codes.


kc
p.s. We really need to mock up a couple of potential new input "views"  
so that people can see "beyond MARC"





Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edu
"Brenndorfer, Thomas"   
11/9/2011 7:49 AM >>>
It is that precision (which carries forward the same amount of  
intellectual work in traditional >cataloging-- it's not really  
"more work") that makes the RDA element set more amenable to  
>modern encoding and data management methods.







--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[Mike Tribby]

>I just don't understand why the creators of RDA feel that it's necessary to 
>make original catalogers do *more* instead of less when nearly all of us are 
>supposed to get more done with fewer catalogers.

Possibly because many of the creators of RDA don't actually do a lot of filling 
out of cataloging records. To many, what we do when we populate records is just 
typing. Their focus is more on the use of the records and other aspects of what 
might be characterized as the intellectual part of the work. Unfortunately, in 
many cases, local administrators share this view, so adding tasks that may be 
mischaracterized as detail work doesn't enter into thoughts and requirements as 
to output.




Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses

mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Billie Hackney
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 9:56 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework 
statement

But it *is* more work.  Adding relator terms took a lot of extra time while I 
was doing original cataloging in RDA.  I know we've been through the argument a 
number of times before, but I just don't understand why the creators of RDA 
feel that it's necessary to make original catalogers do *more* instead of less 
when nearly all of us are supposed to get more done with fewer catalogers.



Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edu
>>> "Brenndorfer, Thomas"  11/9/2011
>>> 7:49 AM >>>
>It is that precision (which carries forward the same amount of intellectual 
>work in traditional >cataloging-- it's not really "more work") that makes the 
>RDA element set more amenable to >modern encoding and data management methods.



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.454 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/4005 - Release Date: 11/08/11 
19:34:00

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[Billie Hackney]

But it *is* more work.  Adding relator terms took a lot of extra time while I 
was doing original cataloging in RDA.  I know we've been through the argument a 
number of times before, but I just don't understand why the creators of RDA 
feel that it's necessary to make original catalogers do *more* instead of less 
when nearly all of us are supposed to get more done with fewer catalogers. 

 
Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edu
>>> "Brenndorfer, Thomas"  11/9/2011 7:49 AM 
>>> >>>
>It is that precision (which carries forward the same amount of intellectual 
>work in traditional >cataloging-- it's not really "more work") that makes the 
>RDA element set more amenable to >modern encoding and data management methods.

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

This is a good example where familiarity with what RDA is actually saying would 
help sort things out.

As Karen Coyle points out, in RDA "artists" are "creators" associated with the 
work: "illustrators" are "contributors" associated with the expression.

A different expression of a work may have a different illustrator, but it would 
still be the same work (and therefore, under AACR2 have the same main entry, or 
under RDA, have the same authorized access point for the work 
(creator+preferred title of work)).

An artist responsible for the artistic content of the work would always form 
part of the authorized access point for the work. In RDA, what happens first is 
that a relationship is established-- artist created work-- and then, as a 
secondary step, an authorized access point is created as a means to identify 
the work. In RDA, authorized access points (which contain all the baggage of 
the main entry concept) are but one way of identifying that thing we call the 
work. In future catalog scenarios, the authorized access point as a tool for 
identification may not be needed, but the relationship between artist and work 
would persist.

The problem in MARC is that much of this has to be inferred from the layout of 
elements. Even if the relationship designators are a difficult fit in MARC 
cataloging, they do offer a list and categorization of the types of choices 
made in assigning responsibility in catalog records. As in the case of the 
"artist" vs "illustrator", the distinction between a creator of a work and an 
illustrator of an expression is presented in much more formal and precise way 
in RDA. It is that precision (which carries forward the same amount of 
intellectual work in traditional cataloging-- it's not really "more work") that 
makes the RDA element set more amenable to modern encoding and data management 
methods.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle [li...@kcoyle.net]
Sent: November-09-11 12:54 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework 
statement

Quoting "J. McRee Elrod" :

>
> Karen Coyle said:
>
>> As for creators as main entries, to me, indicating the role of
>> creators and agents of all types allows you to make sensible choices
>> on output rather than having the catalog make one decision for all
>> situations. It's just a matter of giving more weight to, say, an
>> author over an illustrator ...
>
> Hang on there.  All our art libraries want exhibition catalogues with
> main entry under artist.  Usually the illustrations are more of the
> content than the text, so AACR2 would agree.  But there is a grey area
> of divergence between rule and preference.

That role is designated as "artist" not "illustrator." And in RDA
"artist" is the creator of the Work, "illustrator" is related to the
Expression. RDA definition of "illustrator":

"A person, family, or corporate body contributing to an expression of
a work by supplementing the primary content with drawings, diagrams,
photographs, etc."

If we define our roles carefully, one can make choices based on
context and user preference. If we define them poorly, we lose that
choice. Someone may do a catalog of illustrators, and want those to be
primary for that purpose.

>
> Cataloguer judgement is still required.

The cataloger needs to determine if a named person is an artist or an
illustrator, but cannot determine which is of primary interest to any
given user. That's what proper identification is about -- it's not
about taking away the user's ability to make choices.

And, yes, there will always be grey areas, which is where cataloger
judgment comes in. But if we focus on the grey areas we will be
missing a lot of slam-dunks. (I suppose that's a mixed metaphor.)

kc

>
>
>__   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
>   {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>   ___} |__ \__
>



--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[Hal Cain]

Then you make relator terms (or codes, equally) to be excluded from matching 
and sorting, surely?

The MARc mapping systems I'm familiar with (chiefly Horizon) make that not 
exactly simple, but straightforward -- so long as the person controlling the 
mapping bothers to listen to people who know what's meant!

Hal Cain
Melb ourne, Australia
hegc...@gmail.com

On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 13:48:56 -0800, J. McRee Elrod  wrote:

>Jonathan asked:
>
>>Kind of off topic, but curious why you don't think relator codes are the
>>right thing to do.
>
>Whatever Jim's objections, I can tell you why our clients wish them
>removed:
>
>1) They may create separate hitlists for the same person.
>
>2) If one hitlist, the relation of the person to the first title
>listed may differ from other titles in the hitlist.
>
>3) Although a greater problem with $i before $a, they may complicate
>searching.
>
>4) They create problems (see 1 & 2) for print products such as
>acquisitions lists and subject bibliographies.
>
>5) They do not include all the complexities expressed in 245/$c.
>
>6) Some of the terms in the RDA list are long and cumbersome, taking
>up too much display space.
>
>7) They represent a departure from legacy records; patrons will not
>understand why some entries have them and some don't.
>
>
>
>   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
>  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[Jim Weinheimer]

 On 08/11/2011 22:21, J. McRee Elrod wrote:


See Chicago Manual of Style 14th ed. 16.35-38. Up to three authors may be
given, but only the first is given in inverted order. Sounds like a main
entry to me. One has to choose one to invert. Beyond three, only the first
is given. (Entry under first of more than three is closer to RDA than
AACR2, but like AACR2 in substituting "et al." for additional authors.) Am
I the only one old enough to remember more than one author at the top of
the unit card? But *one* was first.



Well, I beg to differ since I don't see that mere inversion of the name
that happens to be first on an item to be the equivalent to the selection
of a main entry. Everyone on this list is fully aware that the rules for a
single main entry are terribly complex. The same thing happens when you
have four, five, or more names.

Certainly,  *in a bibliographic citation* a single one of all the authors
has to come first, but not in a computerized catalog where displays are (or
can be) much more fluid. Articles can get wild, e.g.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/291/5507/1304.short. Who wants to trace
all of them?! Yet, in the bibliographic citation entry for this item, it
would be the first three to seven authors, with the first one inverted. Who
can maintain that the first person here is equivalent to a *single main
entry*? In the future, I would predict that monographs (whatever form they
become) could very possibly approach this level of complexity.

In any case, there is no reason why Johnson should be treated subordinately
to Masters, except to maintain our old practice of a single main entry.
Many bibliographic databases do just fine without the concept of a single
main entry. Look at Amazon with three authors
http://www.amazon.com/Masters-Johnson-Sex-Human-Loving/dp/0316501603/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1320790524&sr=8-1.
If you look at the cover in the "Look Inside" (I can't see the t.p.),
Masters is first, but in the "citation" Kolodny is first. In the CIP,
Masters retains main entry. Dublin Core also avoids a single main entry.

Why continue this practice when there are three equal authors or more? In a
card or printed catalog, I freely agree that matters are quite different
but in a database, matters are completely different.

If we could get rid of those complex rules, cataloging would become
simplified a bit and access would remain the same if not improved.

Still, I realize that I cannot convince you of this, so we can agree to
disagree. Yet, wouldn't it be great to at least allow the possibility of
something like this? In ISO2709, allowing for such a possibility would be
terribly difficult, but as I tried to show in XML, it is almost child's
play.

-- 
James Weinheimer  weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[Jim Weinheimer]

 On 08/11/2011 22:15, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:


Kind of off topic, but curious why you don't think relator codes are the
right thing to do. If we're listing 3 or 5 or 10 people or entities
'responsible' for an artistic work, why wouldn't we want to be able to say
the nature/role of each entities responsibility?  Or, if we do, but relator
codes are a poor device for this, why?



I answered this in another posting that can be found here
http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/2011/03/re-question-about-rda-title.html

While I have nothing against the relator codes *in theory* I think there
are serious practical barriers. Entering the relator codes entails
additional work for catalogers and some will not be so simple, but more
important, there is the serious problem of legacy data. If catalogers had
been adding the relator codes all along, that would be one thing, but the
decision was made back then not to add them. We must admit that those
records will not be updated.

Therefore, when looking at the situation from the *patron's point of view*,
they will still--always--have to check and recheck every single citation
generated from a library catalog because there may be editors, compilers
and others who must be cited as such. I see this leading to tremendous
confusion and anger. Remember, these are the same people who are not
supposed to be able to understand abbreviations such as "p." and "et al."
(except in citations, of course!).

I don't think it is wise to promise more than we can deliver.

-- 
James Weinheimer  weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/