Karen Coyle wrote: Mac, can you give more info on 1) difficulties caused ...
-------------------------------------------------- As Mac subsequently replied, the use of relator terms can cause havoc with the display and indexing in the ILS. Some relator terms were more common in card days and then fell out of favor as the implementation of ILSes resulted in split files or misrepresentations in the displays. The classic example was Ben Franklin where, if memory serves, there were separate listings for him as author, editor, and printer. (Or under Mac's misrepresentation scenario, if the printer entry was indexed "first" then all subsequent entries would listed under him as a printer.) Consequently, my first library employer had a regular practice to strip them out, much as Mac's clients request currently. Things were substantially mitigated with the development of relator codes. For whatever reason, ILSes seem more forgiving of them -- they do not go into the display or indexing. In that regard, I would wish that the relevant LCPS had been formulated conversely, to eschew terms in favor of codes, despite the subtle non-compliance with RDA as written. While my early experiences shaped my ability to live without "illus.", "ed.", "comp.", etc., my subsequent work with media taught me the value of "drt", "prd", "aus", etc. What we need though is not to be tilting at the straw men of terms and codes but to be fighting for systems that put the information we provide to good use. The indexing and display should not be broken up by the absence, presence, of difference of a term or code. But the term or code should be leveraged by the system to facilitate selection, presumably via a faceting function after execution of the initial search. John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College 807 Union St. Schenectady NY 12308 518-388-6623 mye...@union.edu
