[DCRM-L] Relator terms

[Ann W. Copeland]

The OCLC documentation itself 
http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/7xx/710.shtm 
for the 710 lists the subfield e as optional:

‡e Relator term       A designation of function 
that describes the relationship between a name and a work (e.g., defendants).
710 2 Eastman Kodak Company, ‡e defendant-appellant.

Relator codes, which also specify a relationship 
of a person to a work, are contained in subfield ‡4.


I would question this with the OCLC reviewer, Bob.


Annie Copeland
Penn State








At 09:05 AM 12/5/2006, you wrote:
>The Grolier Club also makes extensive use of 
>relator terms, both for individuals and corporate bodies.
>
>At 08:55 AM 12/5/2006, you wrote:
>>Same for the Folger. Plus the many relators for 
>>printers and booksellers identified as a 
>>corporate body, of the "710 2_ Haeredes Nicolai 
>>Bevilaquae, |e printer" variety
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [ 
>>mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Hillyard, Brian
>>Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 6:20 AM
>>To: DCRM Revision Group List
>>Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] Relator terms
>>
>>Bob
>>
>>One of the most common uses of relators in 710 
>>must be for indexing former ownership by 
>>institutions (e.g. monastic, British Museum 
>>duplicates, and so on).  We would have hundreds if not thousands of these.
>>
>>Best wishes
>>
>>Brian
>>
>>*********************************************
>>Dr Brian Hillyard
>>Rare Book Collections Manager
>>National Library of Scotland
>>George IV Bridge, Edinburgh EH1 1EW
>>E-mail: <mailto:b.hillyard at nls.uk>b.hillyard at nls.uk
>>Direct dial: +44 (0)131 623 3889
>>Fax: +44 (0)131 623 3888
>>----------
>>From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [ 
>>mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
>>Sent: 05 December 2006 00:10
>>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
>>
>>*******************************************************************
>>Visit the National Library of Scotland online at www.nls.uk
>>*******************************************************************
>>This communication is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you
>>are not the intended recipient, please notify the ICT Helpdesk on
>>+44 131 623 3700 or ict at nls.uk and delete this e-mail. The
>>statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the
>>author and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Library of
>>Scotland. This message is subject to the Data Protection Act 1998
>>and Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and has been
>>scanned by MessageLabs.
>>*******************************************************************
>
>Eric Holzenberg
>Director
>The Grolier Club
>47 East 60th Street
>New York, NY  10022
>phone: 212/838-6690
>fax: 212/838-2445
>e-mail: ejh at grolierclub.org
>website: <http://www.grolierclub.org/>www.grolierclub.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20061205/8cd03dd6/attachment.htm