[DCRM-L] DPC: changing "relator terms" to "relationship designators"

[Noble, Richard]

I'm inclined to think that "relationship designators" would have been an
easier sell than "relator codes" proved to be, back in the mid-90s when our
new opac was being indexed. More syllables, yes, but a clearer expression
of what the things are. "Codes" sounded like just another stupid techie
thing that only a cataloger would care about, and "relator" is a term
unknown in the conversation of civilized persons.

RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-3384 : RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU


On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Erin Blake <EBlake at folger.edu> wrote:

> I think changing "relator terms" to "relationship designators" throughout
> is fine.
>
> In response to Liz's question about using "Relationship Designators for
> Persons, Families, and Corporate Bodies Associated with a Resource" because
> that's only type of relationship currently covered by the RBMS Relators
> list, I'm inclined to think "Relationship Designators" is enough, so that
> the list could, in theory, be expanded to additional types of relationships
> in future.
>
> Thanks for bringing this up!
>
>    Erin.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Erin C. Blake, Ph.D.  |  Curator of Art & Special Collections  |  Folger
> Shakespeare Library  |  201 E. Capitol St. SE  |  Washington, DC
> 20003-1004  |  office tel. (202) 675-0323  |  fax:  (202) 675-0328  |
> eblake at folger.edu  |  www.folger.edu |  collation.folger.edu
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20120727/67559980/attachment.htm>