[DCRM-L] Relationship designators

[Deborah J. Leslie]

Thanks, all. It is being emphasized in LC training that although the lists in the RDA appendixes are closed lists, they want to know if certain relationship designators are needed but do not exist in RDA, presumably for the purpose of augmenting the appendixes. (For (For non-LC folk, proposals would go through CC:DA?)

For Valerie and Allison: do you follow Bob's basic workflow? Use an RDA designator if it exists; if not, an RBMS relator term?

In Folger's implementation of Voyager, stacking up ‡e's results in split headings, which we don't want. But when MARC has been replaced with something more flexible and sophisticated, that should no longer be a problem. (One hopes.)


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 | 202.675-0369 | http://www.folger.edu



-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Tuesday, 24 July 2012 15:14
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Relationship designators

RDA 18.5.1.3 instructs the cataloger to "record one or more appropriate terms from the list in Appendix I" but "if none of the terms listed in Appendix I is appropriate or sufficiently specific, use a term designating the nature of the relationship as concisely as possible."

We have interpreted this here to mean we should first go to Appendix I and use a term from there if one works. If none of them works we then use the most appropriate term from the MARC list of relators at http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html, which includes the full set of RBMS relator terms.

Although RDA's wording in 18.5.1.3 does not direct the cataloger to standard lists (as AACR2 21.0D did) and implies that the cataloger could just make up terms on the fly if an appropriate term isn't found in the Appendix, I do not think this is a good idea and always use terms found in Appendix I or the MARC list.

In RDA records we have been repeating subfield $e to show multiple relationships. In past pratice BYU catalogers have sometimes repeated the whole field instead (with a different $e at the end of each iteration), but I don't think we've been doing this recently. I remember BSC discussion years ago where it was suggested it could be done either way.

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.

-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 12:31 PM
To: DCRM Group List <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: [DCRM-L] Relationship designators

For those of you using RDA for rare materials, what are you doing about relationship designators? Are you using the RDA appendixes or the RBMS relator terms?

If RDA, are you piling on multiple |e in the same field when an entity has more than one relationship?

Deborah J. Leslie  |  Head of Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare Library  |  djleslie at folger.edu