<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2995" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=253040423-04122006><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dear
DCRMers,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=253040423-04122006><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=253040423-04122006><FONT face=Arial size=2>We seem to be
winding down somewhat on the final touches to DCRM, so I thought I'd introduce
another topic entirely :-) Speaking of which, MANY congratulations and thanks to
Manon, Deborah, and all you others who have contributed so much to
this!</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=253040423-04122006><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=253040423-04122006><FONT face=Arial size=2>As many of you are,
we are an RLIN library working on the transition to OCLC. We've taped our
records to OCLC for years but never cataloged in the system. In order to
continue our PCC BIBCO work we recently applied for and were granted the
appropriate cataloging enhance statuses. However there was a small glitch. OCLC
wanted a set of sample records, and I chose a variety of BYU original records
that were already in OCLC through our tapeloading. This sample included a few of
my own cataloging records. Although we were given the enhance status we needed,
a few of the records were returned to me with "problems" circled in red. And
these "problems" were all on my records and they were all instances where I had
included relator terms with added entries :-( </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=253040423-04122006><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=253040423-04122006><FONT face=Arial size=2>The OCLC examiners
had two issues: (1) LCRI 21.0D supposedly forbids the use of relator terms, and
(2) AACR2 only allows relators to be used with personal names, not corporate
bodies.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=253040423-04122006><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=253040423-04122006><FONT face=Arial size=2>Now the answer to
(1) seems fairly straightforward to me--LCRI 21.0D is explicitly labelled "LC
Practice", meaning it need not apply outside LC (and as a matter of fact I
happen to know that the LC Practice label was added specifically so that BIBCO
catalogers could use relator terms). </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=253040423-04122006><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=253040423-04122006><FONT face=Arial size=2>The answer to (2) is
a little more tricky--frankly I had never dreamed that we couldn't use "$e
printer" or "$e publisher" after a corporate body (e.g. Arion Press, $e printer
or Book Club of California, $e publisher), but now that it has been pointed out
to me 21.0D does in fact say "In the cases noted below, add [a] ... designation
of function to an added entry for <EM>a person</EM>". (MARC documentation
certainly allows for use of relators terms in 710 fields.) I was told by
someone at LC that it had been recently proposed to JSC to correct this and add
corporate bodies to the rule but it had been withdrawn pending RDA, but I don't
remember anything about such a proposal.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=253040423-04122006><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=253040423-04122006><FONT face=Arial size=2>As the new kid on
the block I don't really want to get a reputation for belligerency (and in fact
I really don't WANT to be belligerent!) but I do want to clarify this and so I
intend to bring it up with the person who examined our records, but after I've
consulted you folks. It does seem to me that relator terms add quite a bit of
value to entries, especially considering FRBR's emphasis on clarifying the
relationships between entities (e.g. between persons or corporate
bodies and works, expressions, manifestations, or items). They are also
essential to the indexing in our catalog. I am talking about relator
<EM>terms</EM>, not codes, by the way.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=253040423-04122006><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=253040423-04122006><FONT face=Arial size=2>I'd be interested in
your thoughts, on two fronts: (1) I have been assuming that most of the rare
cataloging community does use relator terms in their work, but I could be
wrong--so I'd be interested in hearing what your practice is (including do you
use them with corporate bodies, and does your library use them outside special
collections cataloging); and (2) those of you who are experienced OCLC
catalogers, including enhance libraries, do you use them in OCLC master records?
I suppose one could enhance or create the master record and then add relators to
the local record but that does seem a bit a shame to me ...</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=253040423-04122006><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=253040423-04122006><FONT face=Arial size=2>And of course
anything else you have to say about this issue would be of great interest. And
any other tips on becoming a successful OCLC cataloging
entity!</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=253040423-04122006><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=253040423-04122006><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Thanks,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=253040423-04122006><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Bob</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV><!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT size=2>Robert L. Maxwell<BR>Special Collections and Ancient Languages
Catalog Librarian<BR>Genre/Form Authorities Librarian<BR>6728 Harold B. Lee
Library<BR>Brigham Young University<BR>Provo, UT 84602<BR>(801)422-5568
</FONT></P>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>