It is my understanding that, under RDA, relator terms (|e) should be the controlled values that can be coded in |4 (http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html). However, records cataloged using AACR2, the |e would not necessarily have been a controlled term, or at least, not a the current controlled terms (|e ill. vs |e Illustrator, for example).
So, I think Dan’s point for the relator code to take precedence is a good one since our bib databases will contain a mixture of RDA and AACR2 (and previous rules!!) records for a long time to come. 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 [email protected] www.georgialibraries.org www.georgialibraries.org/pines From: Open-ils-general [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dan Scott Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 10:57 AM To: Evergreen Discussion Group Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Duplicate entry in authors.tt2 (is this bug 958954?) 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 <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] www.georgialibraries.org www.georgialibraries.org/pines From: Open-ils-general [mailto:[email protected]] 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)
