[DCRM-L] Relator terms

[Robert Maxwell]

To answer Larry's question of the purpose of relator terms with
corporate body names, here is an example of how it may be useful to have
relator terms with corporate bodies. In our indexing the relator term
does index, so entries for entities (persons or bodies) are segregated
by function. For example, in our author index at "Stinehour Press" the
following appears:

Stinehour Press, binder.  	1
Stinehour Press, book designer. 	2
Stinehour Press, compositor. 	4
Stinehour Press, printer. 	100
Stinehour Press, publisher. 	1
Stinehour Press, typographer. 	1

This means we have one record for a book that was bound at the Stinehour
Press, two that were designed by the Stinehour Press, 4 that were
composed there, 100 that were printed there, one that was published by
the press, and one for which the typography was done there. If we had
any for which the Stinehour Press had a literal authorial function
(e.g., an annual report or something like that) it would appear at the
top of the list, without a relator term.

>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?

The short answer is that, as seen above, the fact that a corporate body
finds itself in an entry in a catalog record does not mean that it is
the printer--there are a variety of functions the corporate body could
be performing. 

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  

>-----Original Message-----
>From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu 
>[mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Laurence Creider
>Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 9:09 AM
>To: Robert Maxwell
>Cc: DCRM Revision Group List
>Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Relator terms
>
>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
>>
>>
>