[DCRM-L] Relator terms

[Laurence Creider]

We do not use relator terms or codes in our records and strip them from 
OCLC records we import to our local catalog.  I think this is unfortunate, 
but the decision was made long ago.  Maybe we can re-visit it.  The 
biggest users of relator codes, if not relator terms, however, seem to be 
those cataloging sound recordings and videorecordings.  You might check 
with OLAC.  I have certainly encountered a lot of relator codes and terms 
in master records in OCLC when cataloging videorecordings as well as 
special collections materials so I don't understand what your reviewer was 
talking about.

In terms of the second question, we obviously don't use relator terms for 
corporate bodies.  My only question about their use with corporate bodies 
is how much purpose these serve.  If a corporate body is a printer, what 
use is the relator term "printer" in organizing a file of names?  On the 
other hand, if you have a cartulary of a convent as well as books owned by 
the convent, then "former owner," might be appropriate.

Larry

Laurence S. Creider, Ph.D., M.S.L.S.
Head, General Cataloging Unit
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 505-646-4707
Fax: 505-646-7477
lcreider at lib.nmsu.edu

On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, 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
>
>