[DCRM-L] Relator terms

[Robert Maxwell]

I used to, and so we do have some records with multiple headings with
different relator terms, and it is allowed, but I finally concluded that
it just looked too strange so I've sort of worked out an informal
hierarchy where if the person/body is printer, binder, and book designer
I choose one (usually printer). That of course explains why most of the
Stinehour Press books are designated as printer; no doubt in many of
those the Press was also the compositor, publisher, etc. Logically I
suppose it would be better to have multiple headings on the record for
multiple functions, but I haven't been doing that for some time.

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: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 2:15 PM
>To: Robert Maxwell
>Cc: DCRM Revision Group List
>Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] Relator terms
>
>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
>