[DCRM-L] Relationship designators

[Elizabeth O'Keefe]

It's unlikely that any one list would or could contain all possible
relator terms in all possible languages. What is needed is a way to
encode the source of the relator term. Hopefully, the replacement for
MARC will address this.

Liz O'Keefe


Elizabeth O'Keefe
Director of Collection Information Systems
The Morgan Library & Museum
225 Madison Avenue
New York, NY  10016-3405
 
TEL: 212 590-0380
FAX: 212-768-5680
NET: eokeefe at themorgan.org

Visit CORSAIR, the Library’s comprehensive collections catalog, now
on
the web at
http://corsair.themorgan.org


>>> Robert Maxwell <robert_maxwell at byu.edu> 7/25/2012 9:49 PM >>>
This statement (from Module 3—Relationships) actually forbids LC
catalogers from giving a 710 access point to the publisher,
manufacturer, or distributor, which is a bigger issue than the
relationship designator and one that makes the question of a
relationship designator moot for them I presume. So I’m not surprised
to hear that whoever wrote that particular module wouldn’t think those
particular designators were important (though again, then, why is
“printer” there?) Statements like this only represent LC’s own
policies. For another example, in the “LC decisions” under Unit 1 of
Module 3 (Identifying expressions) we find “Do not add another
characteristic to differentiate one such expression [different
expressions in the same language] from another.  For example: do not
differentiate one translation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet in French from
another French translation; do not differentiate one arrangement of
Berlioz’ Corsaire from another arrangement.” This is LC policy only,
not PCC policy, and in fact does not even fully represent the LC policy
found at 6.27.3, which continues “If there is a name authority record
with an authorized access point for an expression that includes an
additional characteristic LC would not have added, use the form of the
access point in that authority record”. This is merely to say that the
training appropriately represents LC policies since it was designed for
LC catalogers, and unless reflected in PCC policy it does not prevent
non-LC catalogers from doing things like include publisher,
manufacturer, distributor, or printer as added access points, including
relationship designators.

I would be a bit careful about the idea that we should petition the JSC
to get our terms in the Appendices. I agree with you, Deborah, that our
list is not a “supplemental list”, but it could become one if we
recast ourselves as suppliants petitioning to have terms added to the
Appendix rather than the authors of a legitimate list of terms that can
be used as relationship designators in RDA bibliographic records. I’m
not necessarily opposed to it but I do have that reservation. Especially
since RDA itself does allow terms from other sources to be used.

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] On
Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 6:31 PM
To: 'DCRM Revision Group List'
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Relationship designators

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>
[mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu]<mailto:[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/>