It sounds like there are a few issues here, let me see if I can separate them out:
a) bug: relator term $e is not being recognized as the relator, but is included in the text display along with parenthetical notation for the default relationship (e.g. 700 = (added author)) b) bug: multiple $4 relator codes are not displayed properly, where "properly" might mean something like "$700 $a White, Jack $4 cre $4 dir" should be displayed as "White, Jack (creator, director)" c) bug: the default relationship of "added author" for 7xx fields when no relator code or term is specified needs to reflect the underlying item type (e.g. for a musical recording, should display something like "Added artist") d) discussion issue: when both $e relator terms and $4 relator codes are included in the same field, it's not clear what to display e) (unknown if this is an issue, but "probably") $e relator terms and $4 relator codes may or may not be indexed as expected For my part on (d), I'm still firmly of the belief that $4 relator code should take precedence; it's value can easily be translated in the display (and is, for French) and can be used for linked data (like pointing to http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/dtc), whereas the $e relator terms are effectively uncontrolled text fields that make both translation and linked data much, much more difficult. Dan On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Hardy, Elaine <eha...@georgialibraries.org> wrote: > +1 > > > > > > *Elaine* > > > > J. Elaine Hardy > PINES & Collaborative Projects Manager > Georgia Public Library Service > 1800 Century Place, Ste 150 > Atlanta, Ga. 30345-4304 > > > > 404.235.7128 > 404.235.7201, fax > eha...@georgialibraries.org > www.georgialibraries.org > www.georgialibraries.org/pines > > > > *From:* Open-ils-general [mailto: > open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org] *On Behalf Of *Sarah > Childs > *Sent:* Thursday, May 28, 2015 4:51 PM > *To:* Evergreen Discussion Group > *Subject:* Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Duplicate entry in authors.tt2 (is this > bug 958954?) > > > > A summary of what I propose: > > If no subfield e or 4, no term should be displayed. > > Display subfield e if present > > Display terms based on codes in subfield 4 if present > > If both subfield e or 4 are present, display one or the other. (Either is > fine with me) > > > > > > >