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

[Elizabeth O'Keefe]

Francis, 

Thank you for your encouraging words. I think there is a strong case to
be made to the CC:DA for making provision in RDA for attribution
information at all four FRBR levels.

In your response, you mentioned the MARC subfield $j, Attribution
qualifier, as a possible carrier for "attributed name". I don't think
this would work for "attributed name" because $j  is defined for a
different type of attribution information. $j qualifiers are used to
identify a creator who works in a style similar to a known creator, but
whose name is unknown. They are incorporated in the heading, so that
they form a new heading, rather than functioning as terms describing
uncertainty about the relationship between a creator and a work, like
the "attributed" or "formerly attributed" qualifiers.  Headings
containing $j can be further qualified by "attributed". For example, the
heading

     Nicholas, of Verdun, ca. 1150-ca. 1210, Workshop of

can be further qualified in a bib record as:

    Nicholas, of Verdun, ca. 1150-ca. 1210, Workshop of, formerly
attributed to, goldsmith

$j qualifiers also differ from names applied to creators who, while
remaining unknown, can be individualized on the basis of features of
their style, and assigned a name which consists of a descriptive phrase:
"Achilles Painter," "Master of the Saint Bartholomew Altarpiece,"
"Entrelac Binder." Unlike these appellations, qualifiers such as "School
of" can be assigned to several different works that are clearly by
different creators, but which have in common a similarity to works by
the named creator. 

The type of qualifiers defined for the $j are ubiquitous in art
cataloging, because most art objects are non-self-describing, and cannot
with certainty be attributed to a known artist. Rather than put most
objects under title (titles are non-distinctive, and subject to frequent
revision), art historians prefer to associate a work with a known
artist, or failing that, with a culture and period ("French, 18th
century" would be an acceptable main entry in a catalog of art works). 

Since art works are frequently found in library collections, there
would seem to be a need  to make provision for this type of information
in library cataloging standards. But it might be too far removed from
the conceptual framework of RDA to be incorporated in RDA.  When the
Cataloging Advisory Committee of ARLIS/NA proposed  a new subfield for
attribution qualifier to MARBI, we acknowleged that this type of
information was not AACR-compatible. It was defined for MARC because
MARC is not tied to a specific set of cataloging rules. I don't know
that  RDA will be more hospitable than AACR to non-bibliographic
descriptive practices, or whether this type of information will just
have to be accommodated within the new bibliographic framework, which is
supposed to be open to descriptive practices from various cataloging
communities.

This is probably more than you wanted to know about $j, but I have a
fondness for this subfield, since it was the topic of the first MARBI
proposal I ever worked on.

Liz O'Keefe

PS  The ARLIS/NA website lists "Attribution Qualifiers for Artists'
Names" with definitions:

http://www.arlisna.org/organization/sec/cataloging/attribution_qualifiers.pdf


(not every art historian or cataloger would agree with these
definitions, their application is pretty much a free for all, with one
man's "style of" being another man's "manner of")


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


>>> "Lapka, Francis" <francis.lapka at yale.edu> 8/1/2012 6:45:39 PM >>>
Elizabeth,



I am pleased you brought this to our attention, and I think you make a
number of excellent points, including the idea that attribution is
probably best considered as a distinct qualifier element, separate from
role (or relationship). As you point out, CCO (and the LIDO schema) have
logically created a separate element for qualification data. Other
example values given in LIDO for qualification include: studio of,
workshop of, atelier of, office of, assistant of, associate of, pupil
of, follower of, school of, circle of, style of, after copyist of,
manner of. I think some of these qualifiers might be of use to our
community too.



To my mild surprise, I notice now that MARC has even defined an
“attribution qualifier” field already, in $j (of x00 fields).
See:

http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bdx00.html 



Should the RBMS relator term for “attributed name” be used in $j? 
I’ve only ever seen it in $e.



This item has not yet generated discussion among CC:DA, so far as I
know, but I would be happy to convey our concerns.



Francis







-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>
[mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu]<mailto:[mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu]>
On Behalf Of Elizabeth O'Keefe
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 12:35 PM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: [DCRM-L] BL Proposal 6JSC/BL/8 on relationships with works of
unknown or uncertain origin



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<mailto:eokeefe at themorgan.org>



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