I have to say that I was going with creator myself after reading a few
RDA-list comments. But putting it out locally to our bibliographers, it's
been voted down in favor of author. So I guess it's going to vary from
one library to another. As much of RDA appears to be doing.
//SIGNED//
of Washington Libraries
-Original Message-
From: FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 7:04 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator
I have to say that I was going with creator myself
@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
Patricia posted:
We're not happy with |e author either. We've been using a staggered |e
author, |e issuing agency
I agree with you that author seems strange applied to a corporate
body, and will seem strange to our patrons. I assume you are unhappy
with $eissuing body alone, since it is not
@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator
Neither an issuing body nor a host institution is a creator in RDA, so using
those relationship designators in 110 fields is not correct. Works are not
named by combining the authorized access point for issuing
Finnerty, Ryan rfinne...@ucsd.edu wrote:
What if you have an entity that has multiple roles, one at the creator
level and the other at another level (e.g. author and publisher)?
Would it be acceptable to use relationship designator for both roles in a
1XX, like this:
110 2_ Geological
:
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 02:18:20 +
From: Wilson, Pete pete.wil...@vanderbilt.edu
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator
Here's
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 20:23:35 -0800
From: J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship
Here's what I hope is a quick question. Say you're cataloging an exhibition
catalog that is legitimately entered under corporate body--e.g., a museum. The
museum put on the exhibit, published the catalog and owns all the art involved.
What is the appropriate relationship designator for the
Pete Wilson asked:
Here's what I hope is a quick question. Say you're cataloging an exhibition=
n catalog that is legitimately entered under corporate body--e.g., a museum=
. The museum put on the exhibit, published the catalog and owns all the ar=
t involved. What is the appropriate
with it.
Pete
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 10:23 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L
Pete Wilson said:
This might not be as important if PCC policy weren't to use
relationship designators for all creators.
If you don't like any of the more exact terms, your best option would
seem to be to use $ecreator. It's not in one of the lists, but
we've been told in the absence of an
Description and
Access
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] relationship designator
I am cataloging a book where one author is writing in the style of a
deceased author. The authority record says that the deceased author should
be included
I am cataloging a book where one author is writing in the style of a deceased
author. The authority record says that the deceased author should be included
as an added entry. Would the proper relationship designator for this author be
author, creator, or something else entirely?
Richard
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Baumgarten, Richard, JCL
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 9:26 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] relationship designator
I am cataloging a book where one author is writing in the style of a deceased
author. The authority record says
Kevin said:
.. there don't seem to be any specific designators that fit the situation.
No finite list can reflect the infinite relationship possibilities.
In some situations there is no useful term, or we shoehorn an entity
into an ill fitting one, e.g., host institution for an art gallery
@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator
Kevin said:
.. there don't seem to be any specific designators that fit the situation.
No finite list can reflect the infinite relationship possibilities.
In some situations there is no useful term, or we shoehorn an entity
Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.edu wrote:
I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, but just to sound off my agreement
with Mac's statement, No finite list can reflect the infinite relationship
possibilities and wondering yet again why there aren't more generic RDA
relators like contributor.
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 9:18 AM
To: asch...@u.washington.edu
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for a retitled work
Adam said:
If it is the same work, then you have to decide what the preferred
title
Adam said:
If it is the same work, then you have to decide what the preferred
title of the work is, and if it is not the same as the manifestation
you have in hand, then you would add a 240 for the preferred title
(or 130 if no creator(s)). No relationship designator is needed.
I would
What relationship designator are people using for retitled works?
This is one of the most common relationships that we deal with: Originally
published as:
The book in hand:
Traveller's French by Elisabeth Smith.
London : Hodder Stoughton, 2013.
Originally published as: Teach yourself
Ann Ryan asked:
What relationship designator are people using for retitled works?
We KISS, e.g.:
246 3 $iOriginally published as:$aTeach yourself instant French.
There is not need for a second entry under the same author.
I do miss 503. Our records are becoming too complex.
__
of Washington Libraries
On Mon, 14 Oct 2013, Ann Ryan wrote:
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:25:55 +1300
From: Ann Ryan a...@wheelers.co.nz
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for a retitled work
What relationship designator are people using for retitled works
Hi,
I am having problems assigning the correct relationship designator for a World
Health Organisation Report I am currently cataloguing in RDA.
On title page
Sustaining the drive to overcome the global impact of neglected tropical
diseases : Second WHO report on neglected tropical diseases
Sian posted:
I thought I could take a stab at $e supervisor of report.
Yes, we have added more specific terms to our list of relationships,
most recently chairperson, researcher, and reviewer. We try to stick
to single words if at all possible.
I would consider just $esupervisor. We might
Susan Lewis asked (an SLC cataloguer):
Did we come up with something for this?
No, we still have no relationship designator for a conference, either
111 or 711. Just leave it off if we haven't one by our implementation
date August 15th? Should we consider issuing body even though they
are not
You can, per PCC guidelines, use creator if nothing else is appropriate.
However, author is what should be used in my opinion.
author A person, family, or corporate body responsible for creating a work
that is primarily textual in content, regardless of media type (e.g.,
printed text, spoken
Hi all,
What are people using for the author of the book for a musical? The RDA
designator librettist seems to be for the sung words in a dramatic musical
work, rather than the spoken text. I guess perhaps the correct term would
be author? Or would people just use librettist for both the
Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam Schiff
Sent: 11 June 2013 07:10
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for author of the book for a
musical
Hi all,
What are people using for the author of the book for a musical? The RDA
Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Danskin, Alan
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 6:50 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for author of the book for a
musical
We have been having this discussion too. I agree
://www.banq.qc.ca/
De: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access de la
part de Adam Schiff
Date: mar. 2013-06-11 02:10
À: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Objet : [RDA-L] Relationship designator for author of the book for a musical
Hi all,
What
-bac.gc.ca
Objet : [RDA-L] Relationship designator for author of the book for a musical
Hi all,
What are people using for the author of the book for a musical? The RDA
designator librettist seems to be for the sung words in a dramatic musical
work, rather than the spoken text. I guess perhaps
Sent: 07 May 2013 14:28
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for a conference
Right you are! Since we haven't been using relationship designators on
conferences, I keep forgetting that nicety.
Thanks, Greta
Sent from my iPad
On May 6, 2013, at 11:39
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for a conference
Early on in the RDA process we consulted with the Library of Congress on
this issue and determined that there is no appropriate relationship
designation to describe the relationship between a conference and its
proceedings. Host
*To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for a conference
** **
Early on in the RDA process we consulted with the Library of Congress on
this issue and determined that there is no appropriate relationship
designation to describe the relationship
Hello,
I am struggling to think of the appropriate relationship designator to describe
the relationship that the conference has to the book based on that
conference. I wondered if anyone had any ideas?
(I have considered issuing body, as this is what we have used for works which
have
@courtauld.ac.uk]
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 11:01 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for a conference
Hello,
I am struggling to think of the appropriate relationship designator to describe
the relationship that the conference has to the book based
] on behalf of Lee, Deborah
[deborah@courtauld.ac.uk]
*Sent:* Friday, May 03, 2013 11:01 AM
*To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
*Subject:* [RDA-L] Relationship designator for a conference
Hello,
I am struggling to think of the appropriate relationship designator to
describe the relationship
and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Lee, Deborah
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 1:02 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for a conference
Hello,
I am struggling to think of the appropriate relationship
9:48 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with
Hi all
We are working on RDA training here and one of the books I chose as an
example for creating an RDA record has the following information in the
statement of responsibility
:47 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with
It was very useful to be able to see the example you are dealing with-thanks
for that.
Based on the t.p. and verso (which Springer makes public), I would say that
Giorgio is a contributor
Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:56 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with
I don't think contributor is defined in RDA appendix I. There is I
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:56 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with
I don't think contributor is defined in RDA appendix I. There is I.3.1 the
list titled
Alison Hitchens posted:
/ Giuseppe Barbaro, Franck Boccara (Eds) ; in cooperation with Giorgio Barb=
arini
=3D700 1\$aBarbaro, Giuseppe,$eeditor of compilation.
=3D700 1\$aBoccara, Franck$eeditor of compilation.
=3D700 1\$aBarbarini, Giorgio.
How about Barbarini, Giorgia,$econtributor.?
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: April-02-13 2:17 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation
...@uwaterloo.ca
519-888-4567 x35980
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 2:17 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] relationship
Alison Hitchens ahitc...@uwaterloo.ca wrote:
Thanks Mac, I may have missed it on the list if there was a discussion
that we could use element names as relators. I had RDA-L set to no mail
while I was away!
I've been going by the LC RDA training modules and they give the example
of
I would use *writer of added commentary*. There is a difference
between* **writer
of added commentary* and *writer of added text*. The latter is used for a
primarily non-textual work.
Thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Baumgarten, Richard, JCL
Forgot to say, a writer of a foreword is at the expression level. Using *writer
of added commentary* or *writer of added text *depends on the book in your
hand*. *
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote:
I would use *writer of added commentary*. There is a
I initially also thought that contained in (work) could be used in
this situation. But the more I thought about it, the more confusing it
became, since it seems that the compilation in question must be a
component part of the serial if the RDA relationship designator
contained in (work) can be
Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Yuji Tosaka
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 10:03 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator between two aggregate
works
I
Of Yuji Tosaka
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 10:03 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator between two aggregate
works
I initially also thought that contained in (work) could be used in
this situation. But the more I thought about it, the more
Yuji posted:
I initially also thought that contained in (work) could be used in
this situation. But the more I thought about it, the more confusing it
became ...
Our clients have rejected 7XX$i even more strongly than 1XX/7XX $e,
perhaps because $i comes at the beginning of the field?
Have
J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
Todaka said:
We are working on an RDA record for a compilation of columns selected
from the Science Scope journal. We wanted to provide an access point
for Science Scope in 730 field.
The recently added $4prv Provider seems right to me. If the journal
We are working on an RDA record for a compilation of columns selected from the
Science Scope journal. We wanted to provide an access point for Science Scope
in 730 field.
Here, columns are in whole-part relationships with the two aggregate works
[i.e., contained in (work)/contains (work)], but
Todaka said:
We are working on an RDA record for a compilation of columns selected
from the Science Scope journal. We wanted to provide an access point
for Science Scope in 730 field.
The recently added $4prv Provider seems right to me. If the journal
also published the collection, you could
James commented on the long list of RDA $e relationship indicator terms.
An option is the MARC $4 code list.
100/700/110/710 relator codes
After main and added entries, enter a comma, $4(s), and one or more of
the following codes. The codes will be removed on export, exported as
given, or
57 matches
Mail list logo
