Re: [RDA-L] Correct use of relationship designators for corporate bodies
Kevin, thanks for the thoughtful response. Irrespective of the term "main entry" & the necessities of AAP for citations, and of one's preferences in the future organization of RDA, in Appendix I in the current version, RDA itself is saying that "architect" represents a corporate body/work relationship while 19.2.1 does not consider this to be a valid corporate body/work relationship, or am I misunderstanding? If we are pretending that certain relationships have creator status for the sake of the AAP, then why add RDs for "author" or "creator" to bring out "pretend" relationships in MARC 110/240/245? Cui bono? In the current MARC environment, we would not add an RD to a 610 a/t, a 710 12 analytic, or a 7xx linking field to bring out the pretend relationship in any case, and these seem to me to be the situation where the AAP citation concept is needed, so why insist on adding an RD to 110 if the creator relationship is really a convenient fiction to justify an AAP in 610 or 7xx? If 19.2.1. is really a compromise with the legacy "main entry" / MARC environment, wouldn't adding a pretend RD in MARC records created today cause problems in a future non-MARC bib framework reorganization or even a revised RDA chapter 6? Shouldn't we be thinking "First do no harm" when cataloging surgeons operate on the corporate body (sorry!)? Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation Catalog & Metada Services Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 6:17 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Correct use of relationship designators for corporate bodies I think it would be better to get all thought of "main entry" out of mind when working with the RDs I.2.1. There are two entirely separate determinations going on: the relationships between people/families/corporate bodies and works (chapter 19), and authorized access points for works (chapter 6). The creation of an AAP requires determining those relationships in chapter 19, and most of the names that appear in an AAP for a work are those of creators. But not ALL of the names in AAPs are creators (most notably defendants), and BY FAR not all of the names of creators become part the AAP for a work. We have become too used equating "main entry" and "creator" status, and they are not at all equivalent concepts. Even in some PCC training, there have been statements about MARC 100-111 standing for "creator", which I bristle at. I have long objected to the placement of many of the guidelines in 19.2.1.1. What seems to be going on there is pretending that certain relationships have a creator status, in order that we can then put those particular names into the AAP for the work. We don't say that a defendant is a "creator" in order to make that person part of the AAP; instead, we explain in 6.29.1.4 that we use the name of the person or body prosecuted in the AAP. For laws governing a jurisdiction, we're told in 6.29.1.2 to use the name of the jurisdiction in the AAP; this makes some of the "pretending" in 19.2.1.1 unnecessary. It would just seem to make much more sense to have most of the "considered to be creators" guidelines be a part of chapter 6, where we make the determination of which names of persons/families/bodies need to be part of the AAP. Of course, it's all stated more *simply* the way it is now. On the one hand, it might require some more significant reorganization to put the guidelines in the more logical place; but on the other hand, it might help lessen some of the confusion between "main entry" and "creator" that we have. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! > -Original Message- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and > Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Arakawa, > Steven > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 4:28 PM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Correct use of relationship designators for > corporate bodies > > A question on relationship designators and corporate bodies that > perhaps someone with more expertise can explain. > > Appendix I, I.2. is divided into 2 sections. I.2.1. Relationship > designators for creators and I.2.2. Relationship designators for other > persons, families or corporate bodies associated with
Re: [RDA-L] Correct use of relationship designators for corporate bodies
I think it would be better to get all thought of "main entry" out of mind when working with the RDs in I.2.1. There are two entirely separate determinations going on: the relationships between people/families/corporate bodies and works (chapter 19), and authorized access points for works (chapter 6). The creation of an AAP requires determining those relationships in chapter 19, and most of the names that appear in an AAP for a work are those of creators. But not ALL of the names in AAPs are creators (most notably defendants), and BY FAR not all of the names of creators become part the AAP for a work. We have become too used equating "main entry" and "creator" status, and they are not at all equivalent concepts. Even in some PCC training, there have been statements about MARC 100-111 standing for "creator", which I bristle at. I have long objected to the placement of many of the guidelines in 19.2.1.1. What seems to be going on there is pretending that certain relationships have a creator status, in order that we can then put those particular names into the AAP for the work. We don't say that a defendant is a "creator" in order to make that person part of the AAP; instead, we explain in 6.29.1.4 that we use the name of the person or body prosecuted in the AAP. For laws governing a jurisdiction, we're told in 6.29.1.2 to use the name of the jurisdiction in the AAP; this makes some of the "pretending" in 19.2.1.1 unnecessary. It would just seem to make much more sense to have most of the "considered to be creators" guidelines be a part of chapter 6, where we make the determination of which names of persons/families/bodies need to be part of the AAP. Of course, it's all stated more *simply* the way it is now. On the one hand, it might require some more significant reorganization to put the guidelines in the more logical place; but on the other hand, it might help lessen some of the confusion between "main entry" and "creator" that we have. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! > -Original Message- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Arakawa, Steven > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 4:28 PM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Correct use of relationship designators for corporate > bodies > > A question on relationship designators and corporate bodies that perhaps > someone with more expertise can explain. > > Appendix I, I.2. is divided into 2 sections. I.2.1. Relationship designators > for > creators and I.2.2. Relationship designators for other persons, families or > corporate bodies associated with a work. My understanding has been that > the RDs in I.2.1. are used for the creator with the primary relationship to > the work, what we used to call main entry. In I.2.1., the definitions usually > begin with the phrase "A person, body, or family responsible for ..." > Corporate bodies are identified as the primary creator under a limited set > of circumstances listed in 19.2.1., not all that different from the AACR2 > rules for choice of entry. But not all of the RDs listed in I.2.1. fit into > the > 19.2.1. criteria. For example, 19.2.1 does not have a category for designers, > yet corporate bodies are included in the definitions for architect and > designer. I understand that we can have artists as corporate bodies and > creators (19.2.1.1.1., category h, e.g. Gilbert and George) but I don't see > the > extension to architectural firms, choreographers, designers, > photographers, or composers. In ordinary discourse, architectural firms are > often credited with the design of buildings; it's just that the scope of the > rules in 19.2.1. does not allow for such a relationship at the creator level. > A > photography archive can be responsible for a collection of photographs, > but the relationship is administrative (19.2.1.1.1. category a), not the > relationship of photographer to work. Can someone explain this? > > Steven Arakawa > Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation > Catalog & Metada Services > Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University > P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 > (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Correct use of relationship designators for corporate bodies
A question on relationship designators and corporate bodies that perhaps
someone with more expertise can explain.
Appendix I, I.2. is divided into 2 sections. I.2.1. Relationship designators
for creators and I.2.2. Relationship designators for other persons, families or
corporate bodies associated with a work. My understanding has been that the RDs
in I.2.1. are used for the creator with the primary relationship to the work,
what we used to call main entry. In I.2.1., the definitions usually begin with
the phrase "A person, body, or family responsible for ..." Corporate bodies
are identified as the primary creator under a limited set of circumstances
listed in 19.2.1., not all that different from the AACR2 rules for choice of
entry. But not all of the RDs listed in I.2.1. fit into the 19.2.1. criteria.
For example, 19.2.1 does not have a category for designers, yet corporate
bodies are included in the definitions for architect and designer. I understand
that we can have artists as corporate bodies and creators (19.2.1.1.1.,
category h, e.g. Gilbert and George) but I don't see the extension to
architectural firms, choreographers, designers, photographers, or composers. In
ordinary discourse, architectural firms are often credited with the design of
buildings; it's just that the scope of the rules in 19.2.1. does not allow for
such a relationship at the creator level. A photography archive can be
responsible for a collection of photographs, but the relationship is
administrative (19.2.1.1.1. category a), not the relationship of photographer
to work. Can someone explain this?
Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation
Catalog & Metada Services
Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University
P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240
(203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Bernadette Mary O'Reilly
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 2:54 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Correct use of relationship designators for corporate
bodies
What about liturgical works? The main entry (i.e., the name in a name-title
AAP) is the associated church or denomination, but this is nevertheless
categorised as 'other corporate body associated with the work', in which case
'issuing body' is correct.
'issuing body' could also be used as a second relator in 1XX if the entity had
multiple roles; and if no creator-relator could be assigned because RDA offered
no suitable relator for the entity's creator role (and arguably in the case of
conferences it does not), it might by default end up as the only relator.
Best wishes,
Bernadette
***
Bernadette O'Reilly
Catalogue Support Librarian
01865 2-77134
Bodleian Libraries,
Osney One Building
Osney Mead
Oxford OX2 0EW.
***
-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: 02 August 2013 19:42
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Correct use of relationship designators for corportate
bodies
Using "issuing body" in a 1XX field would not be a correct use of RDA, since
issuing bodies are not defined as creators. The only designator that I see in
I.2.2 that can for sure be used with a 1XX access point is "defendant", since
RDA allows you to name legal works with a defendant's name.
On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 11:15:26 -0700
> From: J. McRee Elrod
> Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
Access
>
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Correct use of relationship designators for
corportate
> bodies
>
> Cathy Crum asked:
>
>> I have questions about the correct use of the relationship
>> designators, "is= suing body" and "author," especially for corporate
bodies.
>
> We would limit the use of "author" with a corporate body, to resources
> entered under the corporate body, i.e., administrative resources about
> the body such as annual reports.
>
> We plan to use "issuing body" for conference names, in the absence of
> anything better.
>
> We assume commercial publishers would not be issuing bodies, but
> rather private and government agencies. Often the publisher differs
> from the issuing body, e.g., a government publications office may be
> the publisher, while an agency is the issuing body.
>
>
> __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
> ___} |__ \
Re: [RDA-L] Correct use of relationship designators for corporate bodies
What about liturgical works? The main entry (i.e., the name in a
name-title AAP) is the associated church or denomination, but this is
nevertheless categorised as 'other corporate body associated with the
work', in which case 'issuing body' is correct.
'issuing body' could also be used as a second relator in 1XX if the
entity had multiple roles; and if no creator-relator could be assigned
because RDA offered no suitable relator for the entity's creator role
(and arguably in the case of conferences it does not), it might by
default end up as the only relator.
Best wishes,
Bernadette
***
Bernadette O'Reilly
Catalogue Support Librarian
01865 2-77134
Bodleian Libraries,
Osney One Building
Osney Mead
Oxford OX2 0EW.
***
-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: 02 August 2013 19:42
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Correct use of relationship designators for
corportate bodies
Using "issuing body" in a 1XX field would not be a correct use of RDA,
since issuing bodies are not defined as creators. The only designator
that I see in I.2.2 that can for sure be used with a 1XX access point is
"defendant", since RDA allows you to name legal works with a defendant's
name.
On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 11:15:26 -0700
> From: J. McRee Elrod
> Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
Access
>
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Correct use of relationship designators for
corportate
> bodies
>
> Cathy Crum asked:
>
>> I have questions about the correct use of the relationship
>> designators, "is= suing body" and "author," especially for corporate
bodies.
>
> We would limit the use of "author" with a corporate body, to resources
> entered under the corporate body, i.e., administrative resources about
> the body such as annual reports.
>
> We plan to use "issuing body" for conference names, in the absence of
> anything better.
>
> We assume commercial publishers would not be issuing bodies, but
> rather private and government agencies. Often the publisher differs
> from the issuing body, e.g., a government publications office may be
> the publisher, while an agency is the issuing body.
>
>
> __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
> ___} |__ \__
>
^^
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
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~
