In response to Dan's points a) Yes. b) Yes. c) I think this is a discussion issue as well. I would prefer using no terms at all when there is no term or code, because it's not possible to sufficiently determine the relationship of the person to the work. A 700 field in a book record could be for an added author, an illustrator, an editor, a preface author, etc. For media, the possibilities are equally varied or even moreso. I think if no information is supplied in the record, we shouldn't try to supply a descriptor. Just give the name. It's frequently explained in notes or the 245. d) Yes. This but this situation would be fairly rare, so I think it's the least pressing issue. I'm fine with giving subfield 4 precedence. e) Haven't noticed anything in this area, but it would be wise to look into it and resolve if needed.
The terms in RDA are controlled-ish. There is a list of terms to be used, but catalogers can supply their own if none in the list are considered appropriate. On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Dan Scott <[email protected]> wrote: > 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) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- Sarah Childs Technical Services Department Head Hussey-Mayfield Memorial Public Library 250 North Fifth Street Zionsville, IN 46077 317-873-3149 x13330 [email protected]
