Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Duplicate entry in authors.tt2 (is this bug 958954?)

[Chris Owens]

Title: Sincerely,

Regarding Dan's list, which is a good breakdown of the various issues, Part (d) really should be a case of one or the other. There should not be both a $e relator term and $4 relator code in the same field. I am not an RDA expert (or a particularly big fan), but if we are looking to the future I think the $e relator term should take precedence over the $4 relator code. All the RDA records we are seeing are using the $e rather than the $4 and when our consortium just went through the RDA process on all of our records with Backstage, all the $4 codes were converted to $e relator terms. Thanks, Chris Chris Owens Director Blanchester Public Library 110 N. Broadway Blanchester, OH 45107 937-783-3585 937-783-2910 (fax) cow...@blanlibrary.org     On 5/29/2015 10:57 AM, Dan Scott 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 <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)