[DCRM-L] Relationship designators

[Robert Maxwell]

I'm glad to hear there isn't an LC policy forbidding it. I was referring to page 6 of Module 4-Relationships [I think the title is misnumbered as Module 3?], which says the following about recording relationships to persons, families, and corporate bodies:

LC Cataloger's Judgment
*	Manifestation relationships such as publisher, manufacturer, and distributor are already elements in other parts of the description, no need to repeat with a relationship designator. Other relationship designators are cataloger's judgment.

I interpreted the last sentence "Other relationship designators are cataloger's judgment" to mean that the first sentence was *not* cataloger's judgment (for LC catalogers), i.e., LC catalogers shouldn't go farther to record the relationship than record the names in "other parts of the description," e.g. 264 $b. Thanks for clearing that up.

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] On Behalf Of James, Kate
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 2:26 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Relationship designators

Bob,

There is no LC policy forbidding LC catalogers from giving a 710 access point publisher, manufacturer, or distributor nor does it state that anywhere in the training materials for Module 4--Relationships.  Slide 10 of Module 4--Relationships provides an example of a 710 for the publisher.  The speaker notes for this slide say, "There cannot be an RDA relationship designator for the publisher access point.  However, there are no RDA police who would object if you used a different vocabulary and added a term such as 'publisher.'"  The issue of a using relationship desginator and the issue of providing an authorized access point are separate issues.

The RDA training materials are meant to be used as a whole so taking one statement without context is not advised.  Our LCPSs are freely available for viewing on the RDA Toolkit site (http://access.rdatoolkit.org/, under the Resources tab) even for those who are not subscribed to the Toolkit.  The answers to many specific questions about LC's decicions regarding RDA instructions may be found by reading them.  Please note that there are no LCPSs for RDA Chapter 21, which is about recording relationships to persons, families, and corporate bodies associated with a manifestation such as-publishers, distributors, manufacturers, etc.  The lack of an LCPS for Chapter 21 means there is no such LC policy which "forbids LC catalogers from giving a 710 access point to the publisher, manufacturer, or distributor."

The website with these materials clearly states that they are being used for "internal training beginning in June 2012."   The Library of Congress made them publicly available should other institutions wish to use them for their own RDA training.

Kate James
Policy and Standards Division
Library of Congress




________________________________________
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell [robert_maxwell at byu.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 9:49 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Relationship designators

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 already 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/>