[DCRM-L] Relationship designators

[Deborah J. Leslie]

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/>


From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Wednesday, 25 July 2012 20:01
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Relationship designators

I don’t see any connection between use of 264 and presence of or lack of relationship designators in Appendix I. “Publisher,” “Distributor,” and “Bookseller” are not in Appendix I, it is true, but it’s not because information about them is recorded in the RDA publication statement (2.8), distribution statement (2.9) or manufacture statement (2.10), all of which are elements recorded in MARC in 264. “Printer” is on the list at I.4.1, and the same argument could be made about it—information about the printer is recorded in the manufacture statement (2.10). I think they’re not there simply because when the list was first compiled they weren’t asked for but they perfectly well could be there and John has outlined the mechanism for getting them there if we want them there. They all have to do with the manifestation, so there’s a place in the appendix for them (I.4). I suppose “bookseller” could in certain instances apply to the item, but there’s a place for that, too (I.5). We can either propose that they be added or we can legitimately (see 18.5.1.3 last paragraph) continue using them as terms from the MARC and RBMS lists (i.e., there aready is a “supplemental list” and we created it long ago). The terms don’t need to be “authorized” by their presence in Appendix I.

It’s also not clear to me that “it is likely that our community will want to lobby for continued use of field 260”. RDA 2.8.4.1 explicitly says “For early printed resources, printers and booksellers are treated as publishers” meaning they could be recorded in 264 _1 if it isn’t clear what the actual function is. So I don’t actually see the problem for our community with 264. (I do think that RDA 2.8.4.1 perhaps goes a bit too far—in my opinion if it is clear that an entity is the printer or bookseller and not the publisher we should make the distinction, but that, too, works fine in 264.)

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] On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 5:31 PM
To: 'DCRM Revision Group List'
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Relationship designators

The biggest problem for us is that 'publisher', 'distributor', 'bookseller', &c. are not authorized designators. This is because in the current RDA universe, those particular relationships are indicated by coding in the 264 fields. However, since it is likely that our community will want to lobby for continued use of field 260 because the functions of printer, bookseller, publisher, &c. are not always stated, or the statements are inseparable. If that's the case, we will need to have those relationships added, whether through petitioning JSC, or as a supplemental list.


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/>



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 Lapka, Francis
Sent: Wednesday, 25 July 2012 09:54
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Relationship designators

Ah, that’s a good point Deborah. Taking all of RDA Appendix I into account, my earlier statement was entirely wrong. There are more RDA relationship designators than there are RBMS relator terms. For a quick comparison this morning, I enclose (below) a table, using the RMBS terms as a starting point. The table notes whether the RDA term is intended for a work, expression, manifestation, or item. I’m also including the RBMS and RDA lists as attachments (and hope this doesn’t break any rules).

It looks like RDA has an equivalent for about 30 of our 75 terms; I’m sure some are more truly equivalent than others. At a quick glance, I think most (if not all) of the RBMS terms not yet in RDA would be valid candidates for inclusion. I could see other (non-DCRM) communities making use of them too.

Francis


RBMS terms

RDA term?

Annotator

EMI

Artist

W

Assignee

Associated name

Attributed name

Binder

EMI

Binding designer

Blurb writer

Book designer

EM

Bookjacket designer

Bookplate designer

Bookseller

Calligrapher

Cartographer

W

Censor

Collector

EMI

Collotyper

EM

Colorist

Compiler

W

Compositor

Conservator

Contributor

Copyright holder

Corrector

Correspondent

Cover designer

Dedicatee

W

Dedicator

Depositor

Distributor

EMI

Donor

EMI

Draftsman

E

Editor

E

Electrotyper

Engraver

EM

Etcher

EM

Facsimilist

Forger

Former owner

EMI

Honoree

W

Illuminator

EMI

Illustrator

E

Inscriber

EMI

Interviewee

WE

Interviewer

WE

Lender

Licensee

Licensor

Lithographer

EM

Marbler

Medium

Metal-engraver

Paper engineer

Papermaker

Photographer

W

Platemaker

EM

Printer

EM

Printer of plates

Printmaker

EM

Proofreader

Publisher

Recipient

Rubricator

Scribe

Signer

Sponsor

W

Stereotyper

Subscriber

Transcriber

E

Translator

E

Type designer

Typographer

Witness

Woodcutter

Wood-engraver



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 4:23 PM
To: 'DCRM Revision Group List'
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Relationship designators

…

For those not yet plunged into the RDA deep end: the lists of relationship designators are contained in several appendixes, and are specific in identifying whether the relationship is to the work, the expression, the manifestation, or the item.

…

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/20120726/35a9eacc/attachment-0001.htm>