Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with
It was very useful to be able to see the example you are dealing with-thanks for that. Based on the t.p. and verso (which Springer makes public), I would say that Giorgio is a contributor (in the RDA sense) at the expression level. When you cannot pick a specific relationship designator, you can invoke the general guidelines on using relationship designators given under I.1. The last paragraph there says: If the element used to record the relationship (e.g., creator) is considered sufficient for the purposes of the agency creating the data, do not use a relationship designator to indicate the specific nature of the relationship. IOW, the element name is sufficient as the relationship designator. This is very clumsy to explain, so I don't really like this approach; but I suppose it does save us some typing, because when the element name is enough, we do not need to add another designator. In this case, I would say that we have to consider the element term contributor sufficient, since it appears that Giorgio contributed to the expression by working on the overall compilation in some way, rather than being one of the creators of the works contained in the compilation. However, while we are in MARC, we do have to add the element term, because our MARC label (700) is not specific enough to indicate the relationship. So I would suggest: =700 1\$aBarbarini, Giorgio,$econtributor. My interpretation. Deborah - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. mailto:debo...@marcofquality.com debo...@marcofquality.com http://www.marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.com From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Alison Hitchens Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 9:48 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with Hi all We are working on RDA training here and one of the books I chose as an example for creating an RDA record has the following information in the statement of responsibility: / Giuseppe Barbaro, Franck Boccara (Eds) ; in cooperation with Giorgio Barbarini This has resulted in the following authorized access points (the resource is a compilation): =700 1\$aBarbaro, Giuseppe,$eeditor of compilation. =700 1\$aBoccara, Franck$eeditor of compilation. =700 1\$aBarbarini, Giorgio. In this situation do we assume, lacking other information, that Giorgio is also an editor or do we just leave out the $e or is there something else appropriate? I have looked through the foreword and list of contributors but there is no other information about Giorgio's relationship with this resource. (If you have access to Springer e-books and want to take a look at the resource: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-0761-1) Thanks in advance for any advice! Alison Alison Hitchens Cataloguing Metadata Librarian University of Waterloo Library ahitc...@uwaterloo.ca 519-888-4567 x35980
Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with
I don't think contributor is defined in RDA appendix I. There is I.3.1 the list titled, relationship designators for contributors [associated with an expression] but no actual term contributor in that list, or any of the others. Is this something that perhaps is in the JSC relator term pipeline? --Ben 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 Deborah Fritz Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:47 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with It was very useful to be able to see the example you are dealing with-thanks for that. Based on the t.p. and verso (which Springer makes public), I would say that Giorgio is a contributor (in the RDA sense) at the expression level. When you cannot pick a specific relationship designator, you can invoke the general guidelines on using relationship designators given under I.1. The last paragraph there says: If the element used to record the relationship (e.g., creator) is considered sufficient for the purposes of the agency creating the data, do not use a relationship designator to indicate the specific nature of the relationship. IOW, the element name is sufficient as the relationship designator. This is very clumsy to explain, so I don't really like this approach; but I suppose it does save us some typing, because when the element name is enough, we do not need to add another designator. In this case, I would say that we have to consider the element term contributor sufficient, since it appears that Giorgio contributed to the expression by working on the overall compilation in some way, rather than being one of the creators of the works contained in the compilation. However, while we are in MARC, we do have to add the element term, because our MARC label (700) is not specific enough to indicate the relationship. So I would suggest: =700 1\$aBarbarini, Giorgio,$econtributor. My interpretation. Deborah - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. debo...@marcofquality.commailto:debo...@marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.comhttp://www.marcofquality.com From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Alison Hitchens Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 9:48 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with Hi all We are working on RDA training here and one of the books I chose as an example for creating an RDA record has the following information in the statement of responsibility: / Giuseppe Barbaro, Franck Boccara (Eds) ; in cooperation with Giorgio Barbarini This has resulted in the following authorized access points (the resource is a compilation): =700 1\$aBarbaro, Giuseppe,$eeditor of compilation. =700 1\$aBoccara, Franck$eeditor of compilation. =700 1\$aBarbarini, Giorgio. In this situation do we assume, lacking other information, that Giorgio is also an editor or do we just leave out the $e or is there something else appropriate? I have looked through the foreword and list of contributors but there is no other information about Giorgio's relationship with this resource. (If you have access to Springer e-books and want to take a look at the resource: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-0761-1) Thanks in advance for any advice! Alison Alison Hitchens Cataloguing Metadata Librarian University of Waterloo Library ahitc...@uwaterloo.camailto:ahitc...@uwaterloo.ca 519-888-4567 x35980
Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with
Based on Deborah's information, the key instruction here is from I.1 If the element used to record the relationship (e.g., creator) is considered sufficient for the purposes of the agency creating the data, do not use a relationship designator to indicate the specific nature of the relationship. Plus what Deborah said in her post However, while we are in MARC, we do have to add the element term, because our MARC label (700) is not specific enough to indicate the relationship. Does that mean that in MARC we are allowed to use an element as a relationship designator and use $econtributor? Or does that just mean that in MARC the relationship remains ambiguous? Thanks! Alison Alison Hitchens Cataloguing Metadata Librarian University of Waterloo Library ahitc...@uwaterloo.camailto:ahitc...@uwaterloo.ca 519-888-4567 x35980 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:56 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with I don't think contributor is defined in RDA appendix I. There is I.3.1 the list titled, relationship designators for contributors [associated with an expression] but no actual term contributor in that list, or any of the others. Is this something that perhaps is in the JSC relator term pipeline? --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137
Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with
Hello, I found in LC's Code List for Relators, Term Sequence. http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html Contributor [ctb] Use for a person or organization one whose work has been contributed to a larger work, such as an anthology, serial publication, or other compilation of individual works. Do not use if the sole function in relation to a work is as author, editor, compiler or translator. Does this mean if the name / code not in RDA Appendix I, we cannot use it? Mary Jeanne Yuen AMES, MIT Libraries From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:56 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with I don't think contributor is defined in RDA appendix I. There is I.3.1 the list titled, relationship designators for contributors [associated with an expression] but no actual term contributor in that list, or any of the others. Is this something that perhaps is in the JSC relator term pipeline? --Ben 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 Deborah Fritz Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:47 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.camailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with It was very useful to be able to see the example you are dealing with-thanks for that. Based on the t.p. and verso (which Springer makes public), I would say that Giorgio is a contributor (in the RDA sense) at the expression level. When you cannot pick a specific relationship designator, you can invoke the general guidelines on using relationship designators given under I.1. The last paragraph there says: If the element used to record the relationship (e.g., creator) is considered sufficient for the purposes of the agency creating the data, do not use a relationship designator to indicate the specific nature of the relationship. IOW, the element name is sufficient as the relationship designator. This is very clumsy to explain, so I don't really like this approach; but I suppose it does save us some typing, because when the element name is enough, we do not need to add another designator. In this case, I would say that we have to consider the element term contributor sufficient, since it appears that Giorgio contributed to the expression by working on the overall compilation in some way, rather than being one of the creators of the works contained in the compilation. However, while we are in MARC, we do have to add the element term, because our MARC label (700) is not specific enough to indicate the relationship. So I would suggest: =700 1\$aBarbarini, Giorgio,$econtributor. My interpretation. Deborah - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. debo...@marcofquality.commailto:debo...@marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.comhttp://www.marcofquality.com From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Alison Hitchens Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 9:48 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with Hi all We are working on RDA training here and one of the books I chose as an example for creating an RDA record has the following information in the statement of responsibility: / Giuseppe Barbaro, Franck Boccara (Eds) ; in cooperation with Giorgio Barbarini This has resulted in the following authorized access points (the resource is a compilation): =700 1\$aBarbaro, Giuseppe,$eeditor of compilation. =700 1\$aBoccara, Franck$eeditor of compilation. =700 1\$aBarbarini, Giorgio. In this situation do we assume, lacking other information, that Giorgio is also an editor or do we just leave out the $e or is there something else appropriate? I have looked through the foreword and list of contributors but there is no other information about Giorgio's relationship with this resource. (If you have access to Springer e-books and want to take a look at the resource: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-0761-1) Thanks in advance for any advice! Alison Alison Hitchens Cataloguing Metadata Librarian University of Waterloo Library ahitc...@uwaterloo.camailto:ahitc...@uwaterloo.ca 519-888-4567 x35980
Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with
Alison Hitchens posted:
/ Giuseppe Barbaro, Franck Boccara (Eds) ; in cooperation with Giorgio Barb=
arini
=3D700 1\$aBarbaro, Giuseppe,$eeditor of compilation.
=3D700 1\$aBoccara, Franck$eeditor of compilation.
=3D700 1\$aBarbarini, Giorgio.
How about Barbarini, Giorgia,$econtributor.?
When one donesn't know what the contribution was, that's a nice catchall.
SLC would use $4ctb.
As Ben pointed out, contributor is not in the Appendix, but we've been
told we may use element names as relators. The MRI has a single alphabetic
list of terms with that added, and the code list.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with
-Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: April-02-13 2:17 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with Alison Hitchens posted: / Giuseppe Barbaro, Franck Boccara (Eds) ; in cooperation with Giorgio Barb= arini =3D700 1\$aBarbaro, Giuseppe,$eeditor of compilation. =3D700 1\$aBoccara, Franck$eeditor of compilation. =3D700 1\$aBarbarini, Giorgio. How about Barbarini, Giorgia,$econtributor.? When one donesn't know what the contribution was, that's a nice catchall. SLC would use $4ctb. The $4 relator term ctb is likely not the same as the broader element contributor. Dublin Core appears to have the same problem: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/diglib/loc.terms/relators/dc-contributor.html where for the broad relationship element contributor several refinements pulled from the MARC relator term list are offered. One is $4ctb for contributor -- a refinement of contributor in Dublin Core and applied in a narrower set of circumstances. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with
Thanks Mac, I may have missed it on the list if there was a discussion that we
could use element names as relators. I had RDA-L set to no mail while I was
away!
I've been going by the LC RDA training modules and they give the example of
publisher: Publisher isn't used as an RDA relationship designator because
that relationship is an element although in the notes for the slide it says
However, there are no RDA police who would object if you used a different
vocabulary and added a term such as publisher.
(this is from slide 31 of the Relationships module)
But those modules were created in the summer so things may have changed since
then! Using $e contributor seems clearer than not including a relator term at
all since the 700 tag can contain many types of relationships
Alison
Alison Hitchens
Cataloguing Metadata Librarian
University of Waterloo Library
ahitc...@uwaterloo.ca
519-888-4567 x35980
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 2:17 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with
Alison Hitchens posted:
/ Giuseppe Barbaro, Franck Boccara (Eds) ; in cooperation with Giorgio Barb=
arini
=3D700 1\$aBarbaro, Giuseppe,$eeditor of compilation.
=3D700 1\$aBoccara, Franck$eeditor of compilation.
=3D700 1\$aBarbarini, Giorgio.
How about Barbarini, Giorgia,$econtributor.?
When one donesn't know what the contribution was, that's a nice catchall.
SLC would use $4ctb.
As Ben pointed out, contributor is not in the Appendix, but we've been
told we may use element names as relators. The MRI has a single alphabetic
list of terms with that added, and the code list.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with
Alison Hitchens ahitc...@uwaterloo.ca wrote: Thanks Mac, I may have missed it on the list if there was a discussion that we could use element names as relators. I had RDA-L set to no mail while I was away! I've been going by the LC RDA training modules and they give the example of publisher: Publisher isn't used as an RDA relationship designator because that relationship is an element although in the notes for the slide it says However, there are no RDA police who would object if you used a different vocabulary and added a term such as publisher. (this is from slide 31 of the Relationships module) But those modules were created in the summer so things may have changed since then! Using $e contributor seems clearer than not including a relator term at all since the 700 tag can contain many types of relationships Another way to think of the Appendix I designators is that they are the more specific forms of relationships depicted in Chapters 19-22. Note the headings for each portion of Appendix I and how they link up to the elements in those chapters, e.g.: RDA 21.4 (Distributor) = RDA I.4.3 (Relationship Designators for Distributors) Our use of $e publisher is based on this, rather than the term originating from the relator code lists or elsewhere. So I agree with the practice that if there is no suitable term in Appendix I and/or none can be conjured up from elsewhere (e.g., $4 relator codes) or made up, then bump up one level to the Ch. 19-22 elements. (I've written before about using other (work), etc., designators for those other elements.) The same sort of thing for the Appendix J designators: we've used related work in added entries once in a while. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
