[DCRM-L] Fwd: [PCCLIST] RDA Relationship Designators: Predecessor & Successor

[Matthew C. Haugen]

In case you haven't seen it, there is an interesting discussion taking
place on the PCC Listserv regarding the right or wrong ways to relate an
individual printer to the corporate name for that printers' heirs. I
speculated at length on some possible solutions, which could involve
expanding upon or revising the existing policy statement for printers'
widows. I also said I would share the thread (below) on DCRM-L for the
consideration of the rare materials community.

Matthew

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Matthew C. Haugen <matthew.haugen at columbia.edu>
Date: Fri, Aug 7, 2026 at 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] RDA Relationship Designators: Predecessor & Successor
To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST at listserv.loc.gov>



I note that the CERL thesaurus records a predecessor/successor relationship
between the (individual) printer and his (corporate) heirs:
https://data.cerl.org/thesaurus/cni00032437

Out of the current options Adam suggests, I think the simple see-also
tracing makes good sense.

I note LC PCC Policy Statement 9.19.1.1 (previously LCRI 22.2) addresses
printers' widows, but not their heirs. Rather than using a 500 field to
establish a relationship between the printer and the widow, it accomplishes
this relationship somewhat indirectly through a 400 for the husband's name,
qualified with "widow of". And this is true whether or not her own name is
known or used in imprints:

100 1#$a Ruremund, Catherine van
400 0#$a Vidua Christophori Ruremundensis
400 1#$a Ruremund, Christoffel van, $c widow of

100 0#$a Viuda Gothofredi Liebernickelii
400 1#$a Liebernickel, Gottfried, $c widow of

As that Policy Statement has been carried over into official RDA LC PCC PS
and MGD for the element preferred name of persons, I wonder if that
practice could or should be extended to cases in which the widow and/or
descendants of a printer are working together and established as a
corporate name? E.g.,

110 2# $a Peter Fischer Erben (Firm)

410 2# $a Haeredes Petri Fischeri

400 1# $a Fischer, Peter, $d -1595, $c heirs of

Or, maybe that PS should be reconsidered to record these relationships
explicitly in 5XX, which would be more linked data compatible, compared to
the 4XX practice which seems more suited to card catalogs. These could be
simple 5XXs. Though, I recall CC:DA considering proposals for other
familial relationships in official RDA (like spouse, child, sibling, etc.).
I don't recall where that stands, but perhaps additional relationship
designators could cover widows/heirs for cases like this, whether a single
widow or son took on the family business individually, or a group of
heirs/successors acting as a corporate body, and whether under the original
printer's names or under their own names, without contradicting RDA's
restriction on predecessor/successor. For example:

500 1# $w r $i Heirs of: $a Fischer, Peter, $d -1595

500 1# $w r $i Widow of: $a Fischer, Peter, $d -1595

On the other hand, the realities of early printing complicate the treatment
of individual printers as personal names vs. two or more printers operating
together as a corporate name in the first place. It is likely that Peter
Fischer's wife and/or heirs were probably already involved in the printing
business operating under his name well before the day he died. In some
cases, widows/heirs continued to print things under the original imprint
after the printer died. And it seems Peter also had a business partner who
predeceased him (Wechel, Johann, -1593) and they have been established as a
corporate name of two people: Johann Wechel und Peter Fischer (Firm)
<http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/no2021009197>

Depending on the usage found in imprints and reference sources, that could
suggest treating printers as firms even if they are operating under a
single name. It would then be "legal" to relate those two firms as
predecessor/successor. The individual people could be related to the firms
as founders, officers, etc., as applicable, e.g.:

110 2# $a Peter Fischer (Printing firm)
410 2# $a Peter Fischer Verlag
500 1# $w r $i Founder: $a Fischer, Peter, $d -1595,
510 1# $w r $i Successor: $a Peter Fischer Erben (Firm)

100 1# $a Fischer, Peter, $d -1595
510 2# $w r $i Founded corporate body of person: $a Peter Fischer (Printing
firm)

110 2# $a Peter Fischer Erben (Firm)
510 2# $w r $i Predecessor: $a Peter Fischer (Printing firm)


And that was more of a brainstorm than I had intended. I'm going to share
this with DCRM-L (Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials Listserv) for
their consideration, too.

Matthew

On Thu, Aug 6, 2026 at 7:31 PM Adam L Schiff <aschiff at uw.edu> wrote:

> I'll admit that I misread the 5XX as a person heading when it was a
> corporate body. The relationship designators are still incorrect. A person
> cannot be succeeded by a corporate body. Relationships between persons and
> corporate bodies are covered
> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
> This Message Is From an External Sender
> This message came from outside your organization.
>
> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
> I'll admit that I misread the 5XX as a person heading when it was a
> corporate body.  The relationship designators are still incorrect.  A
> person cannot be succeeded by a corporate body.  Relationships between
> persons and corporate bodies are covered in Appendix K.2.3 and K.4.1.  The
> PCC Guidelines for the Application of Relationship Designators in NACO
> Authority Records (
> https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/guidelines/authority-relationships.pdf
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/guidelines/authority-relationships.pdf__;!!BDUfV1Et5lrpZQ!XJTixFkFymkmnnaPZIJ2H3u508Lt0IBFJJ8FYzmfxajTJ1Fwl3ebvAHEd7y4wvceZ1B6T7ESWUwThRB4yAfmm5kG$>)
> state in Guideline 8:
>
> If the relationship between entities cannot be expressed using a
> relationship designator, consider using one or more of the following
> techniques:
> • a simple-see also from tracing
> • a 678 field
> • a 667 field
>
> Since I do not see any appropriate designator in K.4.1, there should be no
> $w $i in the 510 field and the relationship can be explained in a 667, 678
> or even just a 670 note.
>
> The same would be true of the reverse relationship from 110 to 500, as I
> don't see anything in K.2.3 that would be appropriate.  Catalogers should
> not be using designators that are defined as relating two entities of the
> same type for relationships between entity types.
>
> I would argue that while technically not incorrect (active dates can be
> used for corporate bodies), if the name does not convey the idea of a
> corporate body, a qualifier for type of corporate body is required.  I
> think that access point should have been established as Peter Fischer Erben
> (Firm) or perhaps Peter Fischer Erben (Firm : active 1595-1609).
>
> Adam Schiff
>
> Adam L. Schiff
> Principal Cataloger
> University of Washington Libraries
> (206) 543-8409
> aschiff @ uw.edu
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV> on
> behalf of Charles Croissant <
> 000003c135cec918-dmarc-request at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 6, 2026 2:57 PM
> *To:* PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV <PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
> *Subject:* Re: RDA Relationship Designators: Predecessor & Successor
>
> In this particular case, I think there is a case to be made for the
> solution the cataloger chose. These are records for a pair of printers.
>
> The original printer is an individual:
> 100 1 Fischer, Peter
>
> After his death, he was succeeded by an entity (presumably corporate) that
> took the name
>
> Peter Fischer Erben ("Heirs of Peter Fischer").
>
> I would say that the cataloger is correct in setting up Peter Fischer
> Erben as a corporate body.
>
> I understand that a strict interpretation of RDA does not allow for the
> use of Predecessor and Successor when one if the entities is person, but
> this does do the job of describing the situation at hand. Perhaps there is
> a better solution that someone could offer?
>
> Regards,
> Charles Croissant
> Saint Louis University (retired)
>
> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone
> Get Outlook for Android
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg__;!!EDx7F7x-0XSOB8YS_BQ!ZKyIiJMyL4bBJTJmVMVD3hnMb9K6Ye52P1eFECol_9zNR0vv8Tt1AraHEf2bvbRFTQvSDFrYb9886KBORA67kCOt81UFtgv863I$>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV> on
> behalf of Adam L Schiff <aschiff at UW.EDU>
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 6, 2026 4:04:18 PM
> *To:* PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV <PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
> *Subject:* [External] Re: [PCCLIST] RDA Relationship Designators:
> Predecessor & Successor
>
> *This Message Is From an External Sender*
> Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
> know the content is safe. When in doubt, please report the email to
> SLUAware by clicking on the Report Suspicious button.
> Report Suspicious
> <https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/K543PA!GUc189rIPeQF4swyFOCnQCMyCMmRLP6tl3sTMM4jt3RCXwA3jSu1OezjAuLVyCH6CZr7EXi19WZV_0iIdl6AbED-YCQwHX42_mbTn6xppKIshbD7HfLeIxiLMtUEpfRXq6hRTt0xGZxyO2rqGA$>
>
> Another serious problem with records created in the Netherlands.  There
> are coding errors as well as designator errors as well as a fundamental
> misunderstanding of what to do with personal name changes.
>
> Adam Schiff
>
> Adam L. Schiff
> Principal Cataloger
> University of Washington Libraries
> Box 352900
> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
> aschiff @ uw.edu
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://uw.edu__;!!K543PA!LMEdB5hqrYggzmDnQnnqRu3wbnvRwZbEzcyYNTsOEZl7OTaTWQZog-uqGsf12vThQPxpjOB8BR1CfG0_pDGRRw$>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV> on
> behalf of Yang Wang <000003c7bf2f46aa-dmarc-request at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
> *Sent:* Thursday, 06 August 2026 13:51:18
> *To:* PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV <PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
> *Subject:* RDA Relationship Designators: Predecessor & Successor
>
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> I came across a pair of NARs earlier today that appear to have incorrect
> relationship designators in the 5XX fields. I am wondering if this
> hybridizing practice is widespread.
>
>
>
> 110 2  Peter Fischer Erben (active 1595-1609) (n 2024022380)
>
> 500 1  ǂw r ǂi Predecessor: ǂa Fischer, Peter, ǂd -1595
>
>
>
> 100 1  Fischer, Peter, ǂd -1595 (no 95036063)
>
> 510 2  ǂw r ǂi Successor: ǂa Peter Fischer Erben (active 1595-1609)
>
>
>
> Terms “Predecessor” and “Successor” are listed under the category used to
> relate corporate bodies to other corporate bodies in *RDA Appendix K.4.3*
> of the Original RDA Toolkit.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Yang
>
> PUL
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Matthew C. Haugen
Rare Book Cataloger | Columbia University Libraries
matthew.haugen at columbia.edu | 212-851-2451 | he/they
<https://universitylife.columbia.edu/pronouns>


-- 
Matthew C. Haugen
Rare Book Cataloger | Columbia University Libraries
matthew.haugen at columbia.edu | 212-851-2451 | he/they
<https://universitylife.columbia.edu/pronouns>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20260807/b31376ec/attachment-0001.htm>