Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[Elizabeth O'Keefe]

I have mixed feelings about this discussion. We are heavy users of relator terms (we don't use the codes).  This is partially because many of the items we catalogue, such as art works and manuscripts,  are unpublished and do not have statements of responsibility. If we didn't add relator terms to the headings, users would be reduced to scouring through the many notes on our records to figure out what is the relationship between the item and all the names that appear under the "Associated Names" label. I'm not sure that adding relator terms for items where the responsibilities are clearly spelled out in a statement of responsibility (e.g. by X; edited by Y; compiled by Z), or do not differ all that much except in degree (editor versus compiler) would be as useful.   Adding relator terms does require additional time, both for the cataloger and for those in charge of cataloging (new catalogers have to be trained in the use of relator terms, policies have to be set on the sources we use and how specific to be; if terms do not exist, we have to submit them to the relevant source.) We do this as an act of faith that someday, somehow, systems will be able to handle this data in a meaningful way, and use it in ways that will promote discovery and access.    Some of the complications we encounter when supplying relator terms:   Our system (Voyager 8) doesn't have a good way of handling multiple roles, which occur very frequently in our collections:   Composer and librettist Printer and publisher Author and illustrator (or artist) Author, annotator, former owner, and donor Binder and former owner (well, you get the picture)   Degree of specificity:   We have a large graphic arts collection, so we prefer more specific terms, such as "painter/engraver/illustrator/illuminator/etc." as opposed to the generic term "artist". We would actually use etcher, lithographer or woodcutter if the item described warrants it. We probably wouldn't care as much about differentiating between author/editor/compiler/prefacer (?) of a textual work. But in a world of shared cataloging and pooled records, shouldn't we all be operating at the same level of specificity?   Coding of source of relator term:   It is currently not possible in MARC to indicate the source of a relator term. We use relator terms from the MARC list, from AAT, from the RBMS vocabularies and from "local" sources. It would be nice to be able to specify the source.   All these difficulties notwithstanding, we are committed to continue applying these terms. RDA's focus on relator terms is welcomed by us, if it leads to systems being able to utilize them better. But I'm not sure that relator terms will be as useful for other collections, even after the systems are in place.   Liz O'Keefe   Elizabeth O'Keefe Director of Collection Information Systems The Morgan Library & Museum 225 Madison Avenue New York, NY  10016-3405   TEL: 212 590-0380 FAX: 212-768-5680 NET: eoke...@themorgan.org   Visit CORSAIR, the Library’s comprehensive collections catalog, now on the web at http://corsair.themorgan.org >>> Elizabeth O'Keefe 11/9/2011 12:27 PM >>> >>> Billie Hackney <bhack...@getty.edu> 11/9/2011 12:53 PM >>> Determining that there is a contributor and providing a fast access point is much easier and quicker than figuring out all of the ways that a person or organization contributed, looking up the terms in the poorly presented and designed list in the RDA toolkit, and then typing them all in.  When we were doing original cataloging in RDA here, it was definitely the element of the work that took up most of the group's time -- it wasn't just me.   Perhaps it is just a difficulty associated with original cataloging of the type of materials we do here, and all of the other testers didn't experience the same difficulty that we did?  Everyone else found assigning multiple relator terms easy?     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 >>> John Attig <jx...@psu.edu> 11/9/2011 9:42 AM >>> Billie, I think part of Karen's point is that the intellectual analysis and decision-making is mostly the same whether you are determining which name to put in the 1XX and which in the 7XXs or assigning relationship designators.  Compared with that intellectual process, the actual keying of the designators is rather modest. I would hope that no one undervalues that intellectual work -- at least they shouldn't.  And I would hope that one of the functions of RDA is to provide a more robust set of ways in which you can record the conclusions you draw from that intellectual work and convey the information to the users of your records.         John Attig         Authority Control Librarian         Penn State University         jx...@psu.edu On 11/9/2011 12:09 PM, Billie Hackney wrote: I apologize for being testy.  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.     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