[DCRM-L] Relationship designators

[Lapka, Francis]

John,

What counts as “missing?” The RBMS list of relator terms is much larger than RDA’s list relationship designators. Are some of these worthy of inclusion on the RDA list (Fast Tracked perhaps), and others not?

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>





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?)
JA: The JSC is very much interested in adding "missing" terms to the lists of relationship designators.  These can be handled as Fast Track proposals, and should therefore be communicated to me at the ALA Representative to the JSC.


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.)
JA: That is true for Penn State as well, but that is because we have chosen to include $e in the browse index.  If we had not, the headings would not be split -- but the relationship designators would be invisible in the list of headings.  Because of our decision, I would be inclined to repeat the entire access point when there are multiple relationship designators.  I don't think there is yet a consensus on the best way to code these, much less the best way to configure systems to use them.  I would also note that this applies to many of the new RDA elements and new MARC fields.

        John Attig
        Authority Control Librarian
        Penn State University
        jxa16 at psu.edu<mailto:jxa16 at psu.edu>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20120724/0b1d778b/attachment.htm>