> -----Original Message-----
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
> Sent: February 7, 2011 9:17 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA provisions
>
> Thank you Mark for being your usual helpful self.
>
> I see no logic for 1XX/7XX$e to be last, but 7XX$i to the first. I
> find it strange that LCPS calls for omitting 1XX/7XX$e, but including
> 7XX$i, They seem analogous to me, indicating the relation of the
> entry to the title being described.
>
> In both cases, it seems better to me to have the entry justified in
> the description, than to have the relationship designator, which could
> complicate indexing.
>
> Does RDA use any other term for $i which differs from the term for $e?
>
Relationship designators for Group 2 (persons, families, corporate bodies) to
Group 1 (work, expression, manifestation, item) relationships can be coded in
MARC this way:
100/110/700/710 - $e
111/711 - $j
($4 is also a possibility)
Relationship designators for Group 1 to Group 1 relationships (relationships
between works, expressions, manifestations, and items) can be coded in MARC by
adding:
$i
Although in many cases the choice of the MARC tag (like 800) or indicator (505
0_ or 700 12) can substitute for the relationship designator.
Dwelling on what gets added or not to MARC fields I think detracts from
understanding the overall structure of RDA.
Relationships are established in RDA by way of relationship elements — many of
which do not have direct counterparts in MARC at all. In MARC, the relationship
designator is actually often doing double the work because it has to convey the
general relationship element as well as the specificity of the designator
itself.
For example, Group 1 relationships are handled by four elements:
Related work
Related expression
Related manifestation
Related item
---
Then there are conventions for entering the value for these elements:
- identifiers
- authorized access points (not used for manifestations and items)
- structured descriptions
- unstructured descriptions
---
Then specific relationship designators can be added:
Related work relationship designator examples:
adaptation of (work); critiqued in (work); in series (work); guide to (work);
continues (work)
Related expression relationship designator examples:
translation of; review of (expression); contained in (expression); catalogue of
(expression); superseded by (expression)
Related manifestation relationship designator examples:
electronic reproduction of (manifestation); analysis of (manifestation);
special issue of; issued with
Related item relationship designator examples:
facsimile of (item); evaluation of (item); contains (item); bound with
---
One other element can be used in relationships between Group 1 entities:
Numbering of part, which is commonly used with series access points.
---
So in RDA we would construct this sequence of three elements for a series,
using the convention of an authorized access point for the main relationship
element:
Element = Related work
Value = Berenholtz, Jim, 1957- Teachings of the feathered serpent
[the convention used is an “authorized access point” – see RDA Chapter 6 for
elements that identify works, and for guidelines on using those elements to
construct authorized and variant access points].
Element = Relationship designator
Value = in series (work)
Element = Numbering of part
Value = bk. 1
The three separate elements are coded in MARC as:
800 1_ $a Berenholtz, Jim, $d 1957- $t Teachings of the feathered serpent ; $v
bk. 1.
As one can see, in MARC, Relationship elements and Relationship designators can
be represented in a number of ways using tag values, or indicators, or $i, or
as part of the text in notes made of structured or unstructured descriptions.
---
Likewise for relationships between Group 2 entities (persons, families,
corporate bodies) and Group 1 entities:
There are several governing top-level relationship elements that again do not
have very good counterparts in MARC (all MARC has are 1XX’s and 7XX’s):
For the Work use:
1. Creator
2. Other person, family or corporate body associated with a work
For the Expression use:
1. Contributor
For the Manifestation use:
1. Producer of an unpublished resource
2. Publisher
3. Distributor
4. Manufacturer
5. Other person, family or corporate body associated with a manifestation
For the Item use:
1. Owner
2. Custodian
3. Other person, family or corporate body associated with an item
---
The Relationship designators associated with each of these top-level elements
have to carry a lot of the burden in MARC, as they would have to convey the
basic relationship element as well as the specific value of the designator
itself.
Example designators for Creator: author, artist, composer
Example designators for Other person, family or corporate body associated with
a work: director, plaintiff, issuing body
In MARC, these can be either found in the 1XX or 7XX. If found in the 1xx, they
are not called main entries in RDA, but are considered part of the authorized
access point for the work (and therefore considered “Core” elements in RDA).
---
Some other examples:
Examples for Contributor: translator, illustrator, abridger, performer
Examples for Publisher (more specific than Publisher by itself): broadcaster
Examples for Other person, family or corporate body associated with an item:
annotator, binder, curator
The relationship designators are coded in $e for 100/110/700/711 and $j for
111/711.
The main difference between RDA and previous practices appears to be the
specificity of relationship elements and designators which can be acted upon in
machine processing far more effectively than unspecified "added entries" with
textual notes justifying them. I don't think though the idea of justifying an
access point disappears entirely; there is in fact the FRAD user task "justify"
("Document the authority data creator's reason for choosing the name or form of
name on which a controlled access point is based"), as well as "contextualize"
which is about clarifying the relationship between entities, and between an
entity and the name by which it is known. Also, RDA 18.6 covers notes on
persons, families, and corporate bodies associated with a resource, and these
are used when relationships require additional explanation.
Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library
