[DCRM-L] Relationship designators

[JOHN C ATTIG]

I think that is up to the community. If there is general agreement with the process that Bob Maxwell described, then the absence of these terms from the RDA lists of relationship designators would not prevent anyone from using them (based on either the MARC list or the RBMS relator list). 

The relationship between RDA and specialized cataloging communities and their tools is not completely clear. I think that RDA wants to allow such communities to extend the provisions of RDA with their own tools, and does not feel that everything must be incorporated into RDA -- which, like AACR2, is fundamentally a standard for general cataloging. Further, there is a place in the RDA Toolkit for such tools that does not necessarily involve their official incorporation into RDA itself. 

On the other hand, the JSC is (as I said) quite open to making additions to the lists of relationship designators in order to assure coverage of all types of materials, including rare materials. I would think that terms that would be useful for general catalogers would be particularly important to add. 

I would also note that anyone may propose such additions. If BSC is concerned about losing control of the process, it might be a good idea to present a comprehensive list of relators for rare materials from an authoritative source. Your choice. 

John 

----- Original Message -----

| From: "Francis Lapka" <francis.lapka at yale.edu>
| To: "DCRM Revision Group List" <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
| Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 4:08:55 PM
| Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Relationship designators

| 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

| 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20120724/57a573cb/attachment.htm>