[DCRM-L] BL Proposal 6JSC/BL/8 on relationships with works of unknown or uncertain origin

[Elizabeth O'Keefe]

A paper on recording relationships of persons, families, and corporate
bodies to works of unknown or uncertain origin was recently posted on
the JSC website by the British Library:

http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-BL-8.pdf 

This situation probably occurs more frequently in special collections
cataloging than in any other type of library cataloging, so I wanted to
share my observations on the proposal with others on this list.

Special collections contain many resources that cannot be attributed
with certainty to a person, family, or corporate body, so the new
instruction in Proposal  6JSC/Bl/8, 19.3.1.4, is very welcome. But I
have reservations about the use of the relationship designator field to
carry this information, and about limiting the scope of the proposal  to
the work level.

The new instruction reads:

19.3.1.4 Other Person, Family, or Corporate Body Associated with
Works of Uncertain or Unknown Origin
If a work of uncertain or unknown origin has been attributed to one or
more
person, family, or corporate body, but the person, family, or corporate
body
actually responsible for creation of the work, in [typo for "is"]
uncertain, record the persons,
families, and corporate bodies attributed to the work, in accordance
with the
general guidelines on recording relationships to persons, families,
and
corporate bodies associated with a resource given under 18.4 RDA.

The proposed term is:

attributed creator A person, family, or corporate body for whom there
is, or
once was, substantial authority for designating as creator of the
related work

All the other relationship designators in Appendix I identify roles.
Attribution information is not the same as role information. It does not
identify a role, it indicates present uncertainty about whether the
named entity performed that role, or the fact that the role was
previously but incorrectly attributed to the entity. This is a separate
type of information, and should be treated separately. Cf. the treatment
of attribution information in Cataloging Cultural Objects, a standard
for describing art and cultural works. CCO treats attribution as a
separate data element qualifying the names of creators and other
entities responsible for or associated with an object.  

Example:
Name: Ricci, Marco
Role: painter
Qualifier: attributed to

RDA does not define uncertainty as a separate data element. Doing so
would be very useful, not just for relationships between persons,
families, and corporate bodies and resources, but for relationships
between resources and relationships between persons, families, and
corporate bodies. Perhaps RDA will do this someday.  In the meantime,
this information has to be carried somewhere, and there is precedent for
using a relator term, "attributed name", to carry attribution
information, so the relationship designator seems the only viable option
for now. 

However, the proposed term, "attributed creator", limits its use to
works. This is the intention of the  authors of the proposal: "based on
our experience we see no compelling justification for equivalent changes
at expression or manifestation level."  

But attributed names are not associated solely with works. Looking only
at the OPACS of the Morgan Library and the Folger, I was able to find
attributed names on the expression, manifestation, and item level:

Expression level: translator, compiler, illustrator, illuminator

Manifestation level: printer, publisher, writer of manuscript (as
opposed to creator of its content)

Item level: binder, annotator

I'm sure subscribers to this list could come up with many more
examples. 

There is no generic equivalent to "creator" for persons associated with
expressions, manifestations, and items. The relator term currently
appearing in the RBMS and MARC code list, "attributed name" would be
preferable to "attributed creator", since it could be used for
relationships on all four FRBR levels.

One other point: The proposed term does not distinguish between current
and former attributions. This is an extremely useful distinction,
especially for art works, where attributions frequently change, and
where it is desirable to record previous attributions. Using two
different terms, "attributed name" and "formerly attributed name"  would
save users having to scan the notes to discover whether the attribution
is current or rejected.

I would be very interested in hearing what other special collections
catalogers think about the BL proposal.

Liz O'Keefe



Elizabeth O'Keefe
Director of Collection Information Systems
The Morgan Library & Museum
225 Madison Avenue
New York, NY  10016-3405
 
TEL: 212 590-0380
FAX: 212-768-5680
NET: eokeefe at themorgan.org

Visit CORSAIR, the Library’s comprehensive collections catalog, now
on
the web at
http://corsair.themorgan.org