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
The corporate body is the creator of the work. The relationship designator would either be
author or if you preferred to use the element name (see the PCC guidelines on
relationship designators), creator.
Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
On Sat, 30 Nov 2013, Wilson, Pete wrote:
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
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
] Relationship designator for corporate creator
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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
