[DCRM-L] Relationship designators

Tue Jul 24 15:47:43 MDT 2012

As one of the Library of Congress's RDA trainers, I would like to clarify what is being said in LC training.

For relationship designators used in AUTHORITY records, there is an LC/PCC practice, which was confirmed by a recent PCC Task Group.  This is LCPS for K.1 and it says, "LC practice/PCC practice: Use only terms from Appendix K if supplying relationship designators in the shared LC/NACO Authority File. Do not supply terms beyond those found in this Appendix."

For relationship designators used in BIBLIOGRAPHIC records, there is an LC practice, which applies ONLY to LC catalogers.  This may be found in LCPS for 0.12, and it says that LC catalogers should consult the Policy and Standards Division (PSD)  about using terms not found in RDA Appendix I, J, or K.

I have been told that the PCC will issue a similar practice statement in August outlining the procedure for notifying PCC about adding to the list of relationship designators.  There is a new PCC Task Group on relationship desginators.  Information about this group is available on the PCC's website here: http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/RDA%20Task%20Groups.html.  Rare book catalogers will no doubt be pleased to see a representative from the RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee listed among the Task Group members.

Our training materials specifically DO NOT refer to the relationship designator lists as "closed lists."  RDA: Module 4--Relationships addresses this issue on slide 8, and the slide says underneath RDA appendices I, J, and K, " Not closed lists."  While I cannot verify what every trainer has said at every session, I feel confident in saying that a distinction between the "open lists" in the RDA Appendices and the "closed lists" in RDA Chapter 3 is being made generally throughout LC's RDA training when appropriate.

All of the materials being used for LC's training, including Module 4, which I mentioned above, are available on this website:

http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/RDA%20training%20materials/LC%20RDA%20Training/LC%20RDA%20course%20table.html

Kate James

Policy and Standards Division

Library of Congress

-----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, July 24, 2012 4:48 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Relationship designators

I hope the LC training isn't saying that the lists in the appendices are "closed"—in the first place it's been made clear that they are a work in progress and will be expanded; and RDA 18.5.1.3 itself makes clear that the list isn't closed by allowing other terms to be used. Unless the word "closed" is being used in a way I'm not understanding.

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> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie

Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 1:43 PM

To: 'DCRM Revision Group List'

Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Relationship designators

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<mailto: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> [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> [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<mailto: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<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20120724/f975a780/attachment-0001.htm>