Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator
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//
Patricia Fogler
Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC)
Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center
DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135
Adam said:
... if the relationship is one of authorship (writing a textual
document) then you should use the designator author that is defined for
that specific purpose.
I doubt most patrons think of corporate bodies or families as writing
a textual document. People write, not corporate bodies or families.
We do our patrons no favours by redefining words to mean what most do
not understand them to mean.
I don't like corporate author any more than do you, so approve of
your suggestion to use $ecreator when a corporate body is in 110,
perhaps #econtributor when in 710, unless some other relationship
applies such as $eissuing body, $ehost institution?
It would help to have the category names in the relator lists, if we
are to use them in that way. Or perhaps the text of this and other
LCPCCPS should be incorporated into RDA?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator
Patricia,
It shouldn't vary from library to library if catalogers follow the
definitions of the relationship designators and apply the principal of
assigning the most specific designator available. In such a case, I think
most catalogers would arrive at using author.
Adam Schiff
University 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 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//
Patricia Fogler
Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC)
Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center
DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135
Adam said:
... if the relationship is one of authorship (writing a textual
document) then you should use the designator author that is defined for
that specific purpose.
I doubt most patrons think of corporate bodies or families as writing
a textual document. People write, not corporate bodies or families.
We do our patrons no favours by redefining words to mean what most do
not understand them to mean.
I don't like corporate author any more than do you, so approve of
your suggestion to use $ecreator when a corporate body is in 110,
perhaps #econtributor when in 710, unless some other relationship
applies such as $eissuing body, $ehost institution?
It would help to have the category names in the relator lists, if we
are to use them in that way. Or perhaps the text of this and other
LCPCCPS should be incorporated into RDA?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator
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
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator
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 a creator relationship?
We are told that we may use the category when no exact term fits.
Unless/until there is an appropriate term, why not:
$ecreator,$eissuing body?
I don't understand the reluctance of include category names in the
appendix lists(s). One should not have to go to the LC/PCC PS to
discover one may use category names as relationship terms.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator
Hi Adam,
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 Survey (U.S.), $e author, $e publisher.
Or would you have to use a 1XX and 7XX, like this:
110 2_ Geological Survey (U.S.), $e author
710 2_ Geological Survey (U.S.), $e publisher
We've encountered this situation many times.
Thanks for your help!
Ryan J. Finnerty
Head, Database and Authorities Management | NACO Coordinator
UC San Diego Library | Metadata Services
rfinne...@ucsd.edu | (858) 822-3138
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 12:02 AM
To: RDA-L@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 body or host
institution with the preferred title for the work. To be a 110, the corporate
body must be a creator. Choose from the relationship designators for creators
and if there isn't an appropriate one there (I think author is perfectly fine
and allowable for corporate bodies and families as well as persons), then use
the element name, in this case creator.
Adam Schiff
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 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= t involved. What is the appropriate
relationship designator for the 100 fo= r the museum?
Most exhibition catalogues of a single artist are entered under artist.
We use $eartist.
In the rare instance of an exhibition catalogue entered under the
museum (which would be 110 not 100), we use $ehost institution in the
absence of anything really appropriate. Another possibility is
$eissuing body.
We only use $eauthor for persons. At an IFLA meet, an European
cataloguer sniffed at me and said corporate bodies don't write books,
people do. There is a certain truth to that.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator
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 Survey (U.S.), $e author, $e publisher. Or would you have to use a 1XX and 7XX, like this: 110 2_ Geological Survey (U.S.), $e author 710 2_ Geological Survey (U.S.), $e publisher The name access point is usually only given one time, with a chain of designators attached to it. So the former is the most common of those you give above. See Guideline #10 in the PCC Guidelines on Relationship Designators for a summary on this for 1xx/7xx $e/$j: http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/PCC%20RDA%20guidelines/Relat-Desig-Guidelines.docx -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator
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: 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 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 100 for the museum? Is it just author? Thanks! Pete Wilson Vanderbilt University ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
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 body or host institution with the preferred title for the work. To be a 110, the
corporate body must be a creator. Choose from the relationship designators for creators and if
there isn't an appropriate one there (I think author is perfectly fine and allowable
for corporate bodies and families as well as persons), then use the element name, in this case
creator.
Adam Schiff
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 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=
t involved. What is the appropriate relationship designator for the 100 fo=
r the museum?
Most exhibition catalogues of a single artist are entered under artist.
We use $eartist.
In the rare instance of an exhibition catalogue entered under the
museum (which would be 110 not 100), we use $ehost institution in the
absence of anything really appropriate. Another possibility is
$eissuing body.
We only use $eauthor for persons. At an IFLA meet, an European
cataloguer sniffed at me and said corporate bodies don't write books,
people do. There is a certain truth to that.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~
Re: [RDA-L] 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=
t involved. What is the appropriate relationship designator for the 100 fo=
r the museum?
Most exhibition catalogues of a single artist are entered under artist.
We use $eartist.
In the rare instance of an exhibition catalogue entered under the
museum (which would be 110 not 100), we use $ehost institution in the
absence of anything really appropriate. Another possibility is
$eissuing body.
We only use $eauthor for persons. At an IFLA meet, an European
cataloguer sniffed at me and said corporate bodies don't write books,
people do. There is a certain truth to that.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator
Thanks, Mac. Sorry, I obviously meant 110, not 100. And I was not thinking of
single-artist exhibitions. Multiple-artist exhibitions often are entered under
corporate body, in the circumstances I mentioned.)
The designation issuing body is not listed in RDA as associated with the
creator element, is it? (That is, it's in I.2.2, not I.2.1.) Is it
nevertheless appropriate for use in a 110? My impression is no, and my feeling
is that even if that's acceptabe, it's unsatisfactory. Yes, we know there are
non-creator relationships which nonetheless get main entry, like defendant,
but normally a 1xx field is filled by a creator. 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.
Host institution, which is also in I.2.2, seems like a stretch to me. Its
definition in the appendix implies that the institution has little to do with
the creation of the resource, even if they had lots to do with the mounting of
the exhibition.
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
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] 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=
t involved. What is the appropriate relationship designator for the 100 fo=
r the museum?
Most exhibition catalogues of a single artist are entered under artist.
We use $eartist.
In the rare instance of an exhibition catalogue entered under the
museum (which would be 110 not 100), we use $ehost institution in the
absence of anything really appropriate. Another possibility is
$eissuing body.
We only use $eauthor for persons. At an IFLA meet, an European
cataloguer sniffed at me and said corporate bodies don't write books,
people do. There is a certain truth to that.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator
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 appropriate term, we can use the
category.
We also lack a good term to use for the gallery or museum as a 710.
It is impossible to have a finite list provide a term for all possible
relationships.
Some of us are using $ehost institution, but I would prefer the same
term whether 110 or 710, perhaps $evenue? That hardly suggested a
creative role however, does it?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
