[DCRM-L] Relator terms

[Barry E. Hinman]

At Stanford, I just began using these relator terms about 2 years ago.  
For reasons unique to Stanford, involving switching from cataloguing in 
RLIN to cataloguing in NOTIS, we had had before that date our own 
peculiar system involving 690 fields, which we continued to use after 
switching to Unicorn, even though the rational behind the system no 
longer obtained.  The research I did showed MARC examples for both 
corporate bodies and persons, and it never occurred to me to check AACR2 
on the question.

To answer the second question, original cataloguers at Stanford in the 
Catalog Department do not use relator terms, except when the specialist 
cataloguers are cataloguing for Special Collections [serials, music, 
Slavic, Judaica], but as records for copy are accepted more or less as 
they come, there are lots of non-Special Collections records in our 
catalogue that do contain relator terms for any use for which they might 
be possible.

We currently have no plans to catalogue directly in OCLC, but at the 
moment intend to continue to create new records in Unicorn and transmit 
them to OCLC by tape loads, just as we do now.  That being the case, I 
will continue to follow all my current practices.

I have asked our cataloguing liaison with OCLC if he has had any 
questions from OCLC about our records, but it is too early for him to 
have yet received the message.

Robert Maxwell wrote:
> 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
>
>  

-- 
Barry E. Hinman	
Special Collections Librarian for Cataloging
Department of Special Collections and University Archives
Green Library (Bing Wing 408)
557 Escondido Mall
Stanford, California  94305-6004
bhinman at stanford.edu