Quoting Billie Hackney <bhack...@getty.edu>:
I apologize for being testy.
Accepted. We all get frustrated.
It's just that anything that catalogers themselves say about the difficulties they've experiences with RDA seem to be passed over and ignored during all of this theoretical discussion on why RDA is so wonderful. Being told that assigning relator terms is easy when it's not is rather frustrating.
Assigning relator terms in MARC is not easy. That's the point. But the intellectual work of determining the role is, I believe, the same in AACR2 and RDA. So what it comes down to is how hard it is to convey that in the record. I think the MARC coding of this is awkward and interfaces don't make it easier.
I doubt if any cataloger includes a name in a record without some idea of the role the person plays. However, if there is a need to include "miscellaneous" persons, there is no reason why such a relationship should not be allowed (that's up to the JSC). Note, however, that you will still, as Thomas B has stated, be using the FRBR entities that require you to separate out work, expression and manifestation roles, so some thinking about what the role is becomes (a perhaps painful) part of the process.
I think that MARC is getting in the way of our ability to think about this "different."
kc
Billie Hackney Senior Monograph Cataloger Getty Research Institute 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688 (310) 440-7616 bhack...@getty.edu
-- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
