Re: [RDA-L] Can "Lecturer" be used as a valid relator term and do you have a good example of a DVD + Book RDA record?

[Henry Lam]

Hi

I think we should not treat this as DVD of motion picture or musical
performance.  We have to know the content of the DVD first. Since it is a
kind of teaching/learning materials, the DVD may be a recording of
lectures.  In this context, I think assigning access points to the agents
who are responsible for the creation of the course materials and the
"performer" (the person(s) giving the lectures) is more appropriate to the
users than the agents who are responsible for the creation (producing) the
DVD.

My 2 cents.

Regards
Henry


On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 5:21 AM, Browning, Sommer <
sommer.brown...@ucdenver.edu> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> ** **
>
> I’ve searched the list and couldn’t find if these questions had been asked
> before so here goes.
>
> ** **
>
> **1.   **We are cataloging a Great Courses DVD and course guide. We
> have the lecturer and course guide author in the 100 field. What should his
> relator term be? Is $e creator sufficient? Though he isn’t the creator of
> the DVD…? He is a kind of performer and author…? Using $e lecturer seems
> silly.
>
> ** **
>
> **2.   **Related note: Can the relationship designator just be left
> off entirely? 
>
> ** **
>
> **3.   **Does anyone have a good example of a mixed media RDA record?
> One combining both DVD and course guide, for instance.
>
> ** **
>
> Thank you!
>
> ** **
>
> Sommer   
>

[RDA-L] LCRI 1.1.E still valid?

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

In another thread, some time ago, John Hostage pointed me to LCRI 1.1E.
http://www.itsmarc.com/crs/mergedprojects/lcri/lcri/1_1e__lcri.htm

John wrote:


LCRI 1.1E had a useful instruction about recording such "with" statements as 
either other title information or subsequent statements of responsibility, depending on 
their placement.  RDA doesn't have such an instruction because it's not concerned with 
issues of display.


Now I wonder: Under RDA, will people still follow the principles stated 
in LCRI 1.1E., even if there is no corresponding rule or LC-PCC PS? I'm 
especially interested in the second case: "If such subordinate titles 
appear after a statement(s) of responsibility, record them as subsequent 
statements of responsibility whether or not they actually name a person 
or body."


Here's an example for a "with" statement with no reference to a person 
or body, taken from LC's catalog:
The correspondence of Roland H. Bainton and Delio Cantimori, 1932-1966 : 
an enduring transatlantic friendship between two historians of religious 
toleration / edited by John Tedeschi ; with an appendix of documents


My feeling is that under RDA it's no longer possible to record "with an 
appendix of documents" as a statement of responsibility (regardless of 
its position on the t.p.), because it simply doesn't fit the scope of a 
statement of responsibility according to 2.4.1.1. True, there is also 
RDA 2.4.1.9 (Noperson, family, or corporate body named in the statement 
of responsibility), but I don't think it could be applied here: The 
examples ("by a group of students with a Korean resource person" and 
"with a spoken commentary by the artist") seem to illustrate a rather 
different situation.


So, I assume that in the the example above, "with an appendix of 
documents" could only be recorded as other title information under RDA. 
Or am I on the wrong track here?


Heidrun

--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi