[DCRM-L] Relationship designators

Fri Aug 3 10:25:14 MDT 2012

I agree with those who say that there’s no particular need to subsume the RBMS list of relationship designators into that of RDA.

I suppose you could argue that the inclusion of all (or some of) the RBMS designators into RDA’s list would help propagate the wider use of these terms, perhaps among catalogers not even aware of the existence of the RBMS designators. On the other hand, mention of the RBMS designators in a resource such as PCC guidelines (for the use of relationship designators) could help in this regard too.

Should we be concerned that our separate list of designators might not be as well integrated into future cataloging tools as might be the RDA list?  Suppose a well-designed cataloging utility comes along—an absurd thought, I know—that allows a cataloger to select the relationship designator from something like a drop-down list of valid terms. Is it possible that such a controlled list might work well with the RDA designators, but not those of other communities?

Francis

_________________________________
Francis Lapka, Catalog Librarian
Yale Center for British Art, Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts
1080 Chapel Street, PO Box 208280, New Haven, CT  06520
203.432.9672    francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>

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 Robert Maxwell
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 9:49 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Relationship designators

This statement (from Module 3—Relationships) actually forbids LC catalogers from giving a 710 access point to the publisher, manufacturer, or distributor, which is a bigger issue than the relationship designator and one that makes the question of a relationship designator moot for them I presume. So I’m not surprised to hear that whoever wrote that particular module wouldn’t think those particular designators were important (though again, then, why is “printer” there?) Statements like this only represent LC’s own policies. For another example, in the “LC decisions” under Unit 1 of Module 3 (Identifying expressions) we find “Do not add another characteristic to differentiate one such expression [different expressions in the same language] from another.  For example: do not differentiate one translation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet in French from another French translation; do not differentiate one arrangement of Berlioz’ Corsaire from another arrangement.” This is LC policy only, not PCC policy, and in fact does not even fully represent the LC policy found at 6.27.3, which continues “If there is a name authority record with an authorized access point for an expression that includes an additional characteristic LC would not have added, use the form of the access point in that authority record”. This is merely to say that the training appropriately represents LC policies since it was designed for LC catalogers, and unless reflected in PCC policy it does not prevent non-LC catalogers from doing things like include publisher, manufacturer, distributor, or printer as added access points, including relationship designators.

I would be a bit careful about the idea that we should petition the JSC to get our terms in the Appendices. I agree with you, Deborah, that our list is not a “supplemental list”, but it could become one if we recast ourselves as suppliants petitioning to have terms added to the Appendix rather than the authors of a legitimate list of terms that can be used as relationship designators in RDA bibliographic records. I’m not necessarily opposed to it but I do have that reservation. Especially since RDA itself does allow terms from other sources to be used.

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

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.

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 Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 6:31 PM
To: 'DCRM Revision Group List'
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Relationship designators

You may be right about the original intent and/or reason for the lack of those terms in the RDA list, but as far as LC is concerned (and the point was made quite, um, pointedly in training), the reason publisher &c. were not in the relationship designator list is because their relationship was encoded in the 264. From LC's RDA Module 3 <http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/RDA%20training%20materials/LC%20RDA%20Training/Module3JulyExpressionsAndContent7-5.doc> : "Manifestation relationships such as publisher, manufacturer, and distributor are already elements in other parts of the description, so no need to repeat with a relationship designator."

I did notice the anomalous "printer" in the list.

John did indeed make the point that terms need not be present in an RDA appendix to be used, and that JSC is nevertheless very interested in getting proposals for new terms. I wouldn't call the RBMS list of relator terms a "supplemental list." It is a separate, self-contained list. Some forms of terms are different in RDA than in our list; our community may very well decide to use the RDA form when there is one, and provide a supplemental list when there isn't.

Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. | Head of Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare Library | 201 East Capitol St., S.E. | Washington, D.C. 20003
djleslie at folger.edu<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu> | 202.675-0369 | http://www.folger.edu<http://www.folger.edu/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20120803/fa3c3772/attachment-0001.htm>