<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000'>Comments below.<br><br><hr id="zwchr"><blockquote id="DWT7052" style="border-left:2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255);margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px;color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;"><b>From: </b>"Deborah J. Leslie" <DJLeslie@FOLGER.edu><br><b>To: </b>"DCRM Revision Group List" <dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu><br><b>Sent: </b>Tuesday, July 24, 2012 3:43:01 PM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [DCRM-L] Relationship designators<br><br>Thanks, all. It is being emphasized in LC training that although the lists in the RDA appendixes are closed lists,</blockquote>JA: Given the "if none of these terms ..." provision, I don't think it is accurate to describe them as closed, but ...<br><blockquote id="DWT7053" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> they want to know if certain relationship designators are needed but do not exist in RDA, presumably for the purpose of augmenting the appendixes. (For (For non-LC folk, proposals would go through CC:DA?)<br></blockquote>JA: The JSC is very much interested in adding "missing" terms to the lists of relationship designators. These can be handled as Fast Track proposals, and should therefore be communicated to me at the ALA Representative to the JSC.<br><blockquote id="DWT7054" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br>In Folger's implementation of Voyager, stacking up ‡e's results in split headings, which we don't want. But when MARC has been replaced with something more flexible and sophisticated, that should no longer be a problem. (One hopes.)<br></blockquote>JA: That is true for Penn State as well, but that is because we have chosen to include $e in the browse index. If we had not, the headings would not be split -- but the relationship designators would be invisible in the list of headings. Because of our decision, I would be inclined to repeat the entire access point when there are multiple relationship designators. I don't think there is yet a consensus on the best way to code these, much less the best way to configure systems to use them. I would also note that this applies to many of the new RDA elements and new MARC fields.<br><br><span style="white-space:pre"> </span>John Attig<br><span style="white-space:pre"> </span>Authority Control Librarian<br><span style="white-space:pre"> </span>Penn State University<br><span style="white-space:pre"> </span>jxa16@psu.edu<br><br></div></body></html>