I'd like to jump off this discussion ever so slightly & ask what relationship designator one would use for a 110 corporate agency that is charged with issuing a quarterly report. I'm still thinking about these GAO reports in which the report is this agency's findings on a specified topic; I feel that the 110 is merited over the 710.
We're not happy with |e author either. We've been using a staggered |e author, |e issuing agency [which is how we are finding the records in OCLC]. I am assuming the latter is valid in a 110 if listed after a creator designation such as "author" or "corporate author" I've been scanning the MARC code list for relators to see if I can find something other than author, & am not coming up with anything that makes any more sense as a creator designation. Clearly compiler is inappropriate for this. |e corporate author makes more sense to me than author & I think it would to our patrons as well. I'm debating whether we need to go back & edit any 110s we have with |e issuing agency. But to what? Is this a proposal that needs to go through the fast track process I have read about? //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135 -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of John Hostage Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 9:32 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator I agree that "author" is unsatisfactory as a relationship designator for a corporate body. I don't think it meets most users' expectations of what an author is. ... >>When we enter this sort of exhibition catalog under a 110, it seems to me we are implying that the corporate body has creator status. For such cases, shouldn't there be a relationship designator that is explicitly labeled as creator-compatible? Even if "issuing body" can (semi?)-legitimately be used with a 110, it seems to me we'd be better served by a designator specific to the creator element. The "sound" of the term "issuing body" itself is not bad. Of course there is also "author," which RDA does say can be used for corporate bodies. But I'm a little bothered by just "author," especially in the case of a catalog which combines texts credited to actual human authors with lots of reproductions. .... I wonder whether "corporate author" would be a good relationship designator for the creator element. I guess logically it has the same problems as just plain "author," but it seems better for describing the relationship embodied in a 110. When I think of "corporate author" I imagine a somewhat more multifaceted relationship to the work than that which a personal "author" has, and its use with a corporate name seems potentially less confusing than just "author." This might not be as important if PCC policy weren't to use relationship designators for all "creators." A corporate body in a 110 looks like a creator to me. If we have to draw a designator from I.2.1, I guess "author" is the best bet for my purposes at the moment, but it appears more people than just I aren't very happy with it. Pete
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
