[DCRM-L] Relator terms

[Will Evans]

Here at the Boston Athenaeum, we use relator terms for corporate bodies
(publishers, former owners, printers, etc.),  but we enter them as 653's
after producing the record and importing it into our local system. The
decision to do so was made long before my arrival here. I believe, however,
the reason centered on the fact we hold portions of personal libraries (e.g.
Geo. Washington, J.Q. Adams), and we wanted to have separate indexes for
works generated by them and works the formerly owned.
 
That said, we would certainly welcome any initiative that would prompt OCLC
to allow more latitude in this area (and good luck with that, says the jaded
OCLC cataloger). It's a rare treat to come across a record containing 700's
with relator terms, as it's just a matter of changing the tags once the
record is imported into our system. Also, it can be a big time saver in
determining the correct form of the name, especially works published in
Latin. 
 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Will Evans
Rare Materials Catalog Librarian
Biography & History Bibliographer
Boston Athenaeum
10 1/2 Beacon Street
Boston, MA 02108

Telephone: (617) 227-0270, ext. 243
Fax: (617) 227-5266
http://www.bostonathenaeum.org/

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 7:10 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: [DCRM-L] Relator terms


Dear DCRMers,
 
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!
 
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 :-( 
 
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.
 
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). 
 
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 a
person". (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.
 
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 terms, not codes, by the way.
 
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 ...
 
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!
 
Thanks,
Bob
 

Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20061205/e10b6277/attachment.htm