[DCRM-L] Relator terms

[Laurence Creider]

Thank you, Bob.  I obviously didn't think about the sort of situation you 
describe.  Just out of curiosity, would you make added entries with the 
different relator terms if the press performed a number of the same roles 
on a book?
 	Larry

On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Robert Maxwell wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

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