Re: [RDA-L] (OCoLC)829311087

2013-03-08 Thread Brenndorfer, Thomas 
>From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
>[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Deborah Fritz
>Sent: March-07-13 6:03 PM
>To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
>Subject: Re: [RDA-L] (OCoLC)829311087

>Thomas said: "The basic problem is then thrown back to MARC where one has an 
>undifferentiated 710 field (corporate body could be a creator, other 
>associated with the work, >contributor, publisher, etc. - none of these 
>top-level relationship elements are in the list of designators)."

>"Creator", "Contributor", "Publisher", and other top-level elements are 
>actually in the list at http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html


I think the RDA categories for the top level relationships are an evolution of 
past methods of categorizing agents and determining more specific roles. In 
looking at the past JSC meeting minutes (http://rda-jsc.org/working2.html#min), 
there appears to have been a long path taken to the point where creator and 
"other ... associated" are defined exclusively as Work relationship elements, 
and contributor as an expression relationship element. The relationship 
designators are only used when further specificity in roles under each 
relationship element is desired. 

By comparison, Dublin Core has a broad agent element "contributor," and 
refinements to it are pulled from the MARC relator term list:

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/diglib/loc.terms/relators/dc-contributor.html

This leads to an odd result. "Contributor" [ctb], from the MARC relator term 
list and with its narrower meaning, is listed as a refinement of the broader 
Dublin Core role "contributor" with its broader definition of "An entity 
responsible for making contributions to the resource."

Because of RDA 19.1.2 (two or more works with different people or bodies 
responsible for each work), a writer of a piece in a compilation would fall 
under RDA's "creator" element.

There are parallel instructions for aggregates of two or more expressions, 
manifestations, and items (RDA 20.1.2, 21.1.2, 22.1.2), but this would mean 
that each person or body would, at a minimum, fall under a top level 
relationship element such as "creator," "other ... associated with a work," 
"contributor," "publisher," etc.

I would take that to mean that a writer of a piece in a compilation is a 
"creator," but a translator of that piece is a "contributor." Using $e in a 700 
field (such as $e author or $e translator) would help in distinguishing creator 
from contributor, but there are cases when there is no relationship designator 
in the RDA elements (ignoring the MARC relator term list), or situations when 
agencies opt out of using relationship designators. In those scenarios, the 700 
field becomes undifferentiated, and the authorized access point cannot be 
easily mapped into an RDA relationship element like "creator" or "contributor." 
If one were to create new MARC relator terms for these top-level relationship 
elements, then a distinction should be made between RDA's "contributor" and the 
current "contributor" [ctb] relator term.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] (OCoLC)829311087

2013-03-07 Thread Deborah Fritz 
Thomas said: "The basic problem is then thrown back to MARC where one has an
undifferentiated 710 field (corporate body could be a creator, other
associated with the work, contributor, publisher, etc. - none of these
top-level relationship elements are in the list of designators)."

 

"Creator", "Contributor", "Publisher", and other top-level elements are
actually in the list at http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html

 

But "Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated with a Work" is not
there. 

 

However RDA appendix I.1 says: "If none of the terms listed in this appendix
is appropriate or sufficiently specific, use a term indicating the nature of
the relationship as concisely as possible." So if we can think of a more
specific term, we can use it in $e (notice that the MARC instructions for $e
do not mention the code list); the problem being, of course, that there will
be no corresponding $4 code, unless we can get our new term approved and
added to the list in I.1 and the MARC Code List for Relators.

 

As Thomas points out, if we do not add Relationship Designators, we have no
way of knowing what the relationships are in MARC, because the tag numbers
will not tell us about exact relationships.

 

Even though Relationship Designators are not RDA-Core, I believe that the
reason that they are not core is that the top-level relationship will always
be present as an element, and so that element label will be used to express
the relationship, if no more specific designator is provided. So, we should
make every attempt to add relationship designators in our MARC records, even
if they are just the top-level ones.

 

The one problem being that crazy long "Other Person, Family or Corporate
Body Associated with a Work" for which MARC has no entry. So this is where
we can invoke the permission to come up with our own term. I'm not going to
take a stab at a suggestion for this resource, however.

 

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 Brenndorfer, Thomas
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 5:35 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] (OCoLC)829311087

 

In looking at the examples in RDA 19.3.1.3 for "Other Person, Family or
Corporate Body Associated with a Work" there are several instances where a
specific relationship designator is not in the initial phrasing for the
example.

 

So when one sees "Authorized access point representing the dedicatee for"
one can take that mean that the relationship designator "dedicatee" is used.

 

When one sees "Authorized access point representing the corporate body
associated with the work for" then no relationship designator is used.

 

The top-level elements for Work relationships are:

 

Creator

Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated with a Work

 

So if one can't see a match in the list of relationship designators in RDA
Appendix I.2.2 (for Others associated with a Work) then no relationship
designator is assigned. The basic problem is then thrown back to MARC where
one has an undifferentiated 710 field (corporate body could be a creator,
other associated with the work, contributor, publisher, etc. - none of these
top-level relationship elements are in the list of designators).

 

Thomas Brenndorfer

Guelph Public Library

 

 

 

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: March-07-13 5:17 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] (OCoLC)829311087

 

I don't believe there is any relationship designator yet defined in RDA
appropriate for this particular relationship (and lots of others).  The
place this relationship fits into is I.2.2 (Relationship Designators for
Other Persons, Families, or Corporate Bodies Associated with a Work).  Not
much there that fits this!  The closest seem to be "host institution",
"Issuing body", and "sponsoring body", but none of them is really
appropriate.  I would just omit subfield $e, since it is not a required
element.

 

Kevin M. Randall

Principal Serials Cataloger

Northwestern University Library

k...@northwestern.edu

(847) 491-2939

 

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

 

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Michael Borries
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 3:57 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] (OCoLC)829311087

 

I come to the collective wisdom looking for guidance.

 

I have cataloged this record according to RDA sta

Re: [RDA-L] (OCoLC)829311087

2013-03-07 Thread Brenndorfer, Thomas 
In looking at the examples in RDA 19.3.1.3 for "Other Person, Family or 
Corporate Body Associated with a Work" there are several instances where a 
specific relationship designator is not in the initial phrasing for the example.

So when one sees "Authorized access point representing the dedicatee for" one 
can take that mean that the relationship designator "dedicatee" is used.

When one sees "Authorized access point representing the corporate body 
associated with the work for" then no relationship designator is used.

The top-level elements for Work relationships are:

Creator
Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated with a Work

So if one can't see a match in the list of relationship designators in RDA 
Appendix I.2.2 (for Others associated with a Work) then no relationship 
designator is assigned. The basic problem is then thrown back to MARC where one 
has an undifferentiated 710 field (corporate body could be a creator, other 
associated with the work, contributor, publisher, etc. - none of these 
top-level relationship elements are in the list of designators).

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: March-07-13 5:17 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] (OCoLC)829311087

I don't believe there is any relationship designator yet defined in RDA 
appropriate for this particular relationship (and lots of others).  The place 
this relationship fits into is I.2.2 (Relationship Designators for Other 
Persons, Families, or Corporate Bodies Associated with a Work).  Not much there 
that fits this!  The closest seem to be "host institution", "Issuing body", and 
"sponsoring body", but none of them is really appropriate.  I would just omit 
subfield $e, since it is not a required element.

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu<mailto:k...@northwestern.edu>
(847) 491-2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Michael Borries
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 3:57 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: [RDA-L] (OCoLC)829311087

I come to the collective wisdom looking for guidance.

I have cataloged this record according to RDA standards (I hope!).  What 
troubles me is the 710 for Polaroid Collections.  I have no idea what to use 
for the subfield $e except perhaps "contributor," and that doesn't seem 
correct.  The term "author" would seem to suggest that the Polaroid Collections 
should be the preferred entry, but this book does not seem to fall into any of 
the categories for corporate authorship.  I did use the subdivision "Catalogs" 
in one of the 610 fields, but this doesn't seem to be an "official" catalog, 
although all the illustrations are of photographs held by the Polaroid 
Collections, and Barbara Hitchcock is the director of the Collections.

Thoughts?  Any and all corrections also gratefully received, especially for the 
300 field.

Michael S. Borries
Cataloger, City University of New York
151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY  10010
Phone: (646) 312-1687
Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu<mailto:michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu>

Re: [RDA-L] (OCoLC)829311087

2013-03-07 Thread Kevin M Randall 
I don't believe there is any relationship designator yet defined in RDA 
appropriate for this particular relationship (and lots of others).  The place 
this relationship fits into is I.2.2 (Relationship Designators for Other 
Persons, Families, or Corporate Bodies Associated with a Work).  Not much there 
that fits this!  The closest seem to be "host institution", "Issuing body", and 
"sponsoring body", but none of them is really appropriate.  I would just omit 
subfield $e, since it is not a required element.

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Michael Borries
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 3:57 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] (OCoLC)829311087

I come to the collective wisdom looking for guidance.

I have cataloged this record according to RDA standards (I hope!).  What 
troubles me is the 710 for Polaroid Collections.  I have no idea what to use 
for the subfield $e except perhaps "contributor," and that doesn't seem 
correct.  The term "author" would seem to suggest that the Polaroid Collections 
should be the preferred entry, but this book does not seem to fall into any of 
the categories for corporate authorship.  I did use the subdivision "Catalogs" 
in one of the 610 fields, but this doesn't seem to be an "official" catalog, 
although all the illustrations are of photographs held by the Polaroid 
Collections, and Barbara Hitchcock is the director of the Collections.

Thoughts?  Any and all corrections also gratefully received, especially for the 
300 field.

Michael S. Borries
Cataloger, City University of New York
151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY  10010
Phone: (646) 312-1687
Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu