[DCRM-L] letter authorship

Thu Oct 5 09:48:17 MDT 2017

Hi Maria and Francis,

MARC relators and RDA relationship designators were reconciled in 2013 and
details are given in this announcement from May 31, 2013:
http://www.loc.gov/marc/annmarcrdarelators.html

>
>    - Roles that essentially mean the same thing but use different terms
>    have been brought together, either using the MARC term or the RDA term.
>    Many role terms were the same, but when they differed the RDA term was
>    preferred in many cases. In the cases where the terms were different there
>    are references in the form of alternate labels from the unused form and
>    they are designated in terms of their source, MARC or RDA.
>    - Where the RDA term was used instead of the MARC term, the code was
>    retained unchanged even if it is no longer mnemonic.
>
>
The PCC Standing Committee on Training (SCT) Training Manual for Applying
Relationship Designators in Bibliographic Records (2015) guideline 2
indicates:

It is recommended that PCC catalogers use relationship designators from the
> RDA appendices. If the term needed is not there, use the PCC relationship
> designator proposal form to propose a new term or request a revision of an
> existing term.
> If a PCC cataloger wishes to use a term from a different registered
> vocabulary (e.g., MARC relator terms, RBMS relationship designators, etc.),
> he/she may do so.
>

RBMS and other specialized lists aren't obligated to reconcile their terms
with RDA. But there's no current means in MARC for indicating the source of
the relationship designator, so this could result in some confusion and
mess if/when these relationships are converted into linked data triples in
the future.

I believe RSC's moratorium on new relationship designator proposals is
still in place, and I think the RBMS Controlled Vocabularies Editorial
Group has proposed a moratorium on new terms, too, so any new terms and/or
reconciliation of existing terms might have to wait.

For Francis's letters, until such time as "sender" is established in one of
the sources, maybe the more general "correspondent" from RBMS might be
applicable to senders or other parties in a correspondence?

As for whether the author is the secretary or the person/family/corporate
body on whose behalf the secretary writes, is it helpful to draw a
distinction (or maybe a spectrum) between 1) the secretary-as-author
responsible for the content written on behalf of another party who
originated/caused the letter to be issued (as in your example), and 2) a
secretary-as-producer of the manifestation who acts solely as a typist,
copyist, transcriber, etc. of correspondence whose content was authored by
another agent?

I assume the secretary is more likely to be named in the first case. For
the latter case, RDA has no designators for producers of manifestations.
The MARC or RBMS relationship designator "Scribe" seems to be the closest
match, if somewhat anachronistic, for a secretary who takes dictation, or
serves as a copyist, typist, etc. on behalf of someone else: "Use for the
amanuensis and for the writer of manuscripts proper."

1)
Secretary, $e author.
Hambledon, Lord, $e issuing body [correspondent, contributor, etc.?]

2)
Hambleden, Lord, $e author.
Secretary, $e scribe [producer, contributor?]

Or some such letters might be a case of administrative, etc. correspondence
that would be considered to have a corporate creator, with a secretary as a
contributor to the content and/or producer of the manifestation. Maybe
there is even some case to be made for treating "Hambleden" and other
landed nobility as a sort of jurisdictional or governmental corporate body
inclusive of the incumbent Lord Hambleden and his secretaries, employees,
etc. who collectively administer and issue letters on behalf of that title,
somewhat similar to the case for official communiques of heads of state,
popes, etc.

In many cases, I imagine the person or body on whose behalf the letter is
being written might have a subject relationship to the letter as well.

Matt

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Maria Oldal <oldalm at themorgan.org> wrote:

> Erin,
>
> While I would be delighted to see "sender" added to the list of
> relationship designators, I am concerned about the conflict "recipient" has
> with the MARC term list.
>
> Addressee [rcp]A person, family, or organization to whom the
> correspondence in a work is addressed
> UF Recipient
>
> Do you, or anyone else on the list, know the background of the change? The
> code remained "rcp." I wonder what exactly necessitated this. Will the RBMS
> relator term change as well?
>
> Maria
>
>
> --
> Maria Oldal
> Manager of Collections Information and Library Systems
> The Morgan Library & Museum
> 225 Madison Avenue
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=225+Madison+AvenueNew+York,+NY+10016&entry=gmail&source=g>
> New York, NY 10016
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=225+Madison+AvenueNew+York,+NY+10016&entry=gmail&source=g>
> Tel: 212-590-0382 <(212)%20590-0382>
> Email: oldalm at themorgan.org
>
> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Erin Blake <EBlake at folger.edu> wrote:
>
>> This is an example of how "sender" can be a useful relationship
>> designator. See http://rbms.info/cv-comments/2017/08/07/term-sender/ for
>> the current discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> Proposed term and scope note:
>>
>>
>>
>> *Sender*
>>
>> *Scope note:* Use for the entity from whom correspondence is sent.
>>
>> *Broader Term:* correspondent
>> *Related Term:* recipient
>>
>>
>>
>> EB.
>>
>>
>>
>> ________
>>
>>
>> Erin C. Blake, Ph.D.  |  Head of Collection Information Services  |
>>  Folger Shakespeare Library  |  201 E. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC,
>> 20003
>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=201+E.+Capitol+St.+SE,+Washington,+DC,+20003&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>  |  eblake at folger.edu  |  office tel. +1 202-608-1717 <(202)%20608-1717>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On Behalf Of *Lapka,
>> Francis
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 26, 2017 1:25 PM
>> *To:* dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
>> *Subject:* [DCRM-L] letter authorship
>>
>>
>>
>> For manuscript catalogers:
>>
>>
>>
>> When describing a letter composed by one person (frequently a secretary)
>> on behalf of another, what is best practice for choosing the author? Here’s
>> a shorter example (1937):
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Madam, In reply to your letter Lord Hambleden says he is glad to
>> give a prize and has asked me to send you the enclosed five guineas. He is
>> greatly looking forward to seeing the exhibition. Yours faithfully,
>> [secretary’s name]
>>
>>
>>
>> In this example, would you treat Hambleden as author? If not, as
>> contributor? If treating him as contributor, is there a relationship
>> designator that would be appropriate? I have a handful of such letters – of
>> varying origination – at my desk now, so advice would be most welcome.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Francis
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Francis Lapka  ·  Catalog Librarian
>>
>> Dept. of Rare Books and Manuscripts
>>
>> Yale Center for British Art
>>
>> 203.432.9672 <(203)%20432-9672>  ·  francis.lapka at yale.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

-- 

-- 
Matthew C. Haugen
Rare Book Cataloger
102 Butler Library
Columbia University Libraries
E-mail: matthew.haugen at columbia.edu
Phone: 212-851-2451
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20171005/ce92d1e6/attachment-0001.html>