I don't think I agree with this as an argument for not including high level general terms in the relationship terms available for use. We do need "creator" and "contributor". I don't think it's a matter of it being redundant in MARC. In E/R or presumably in linked data you'd just have a person entity description in the database linked to a n entity description such as work or expression. You need to be able to specify the relationship, but you should be able to specify it using a general relationship such as "creator" or "contributor" if you don't want to (or can't) specify the exact nature of the creator or contributor relationship.
Note 20.2 (and 19.2, etc.) isn't an element (that is, an attribute), it's a relationship. So I suppose if the basic relationship is in fact called "contributor" or "creator" we would be justified in using those terms as relationship designators even if they aren't explicitly listed in Appendix I. The second paragraph of 18.5.1.3 allows it anyway. We've been using "creator" when appropriate. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian Genre/Form Authorities Librarian 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 1:13 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors Benjamin, The RDA element 20.2 is named Contributor, which is why there is no designator. It wouldn't be needed in RDA because the element itself is contributor. You wouldn't need to encode this in a designator, because it would be redundant: Contributor: Maxwell, Robert, contributor. The problem of course is encoding RDA in MARC 21, because 7XX is not solely limited to contributors. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Tue, 16 Oct 2012, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote: > Ed, > > For me the question is--is it better to use an existing term that doesn't > quite fit (like "writer of added commentary") or to supply an "ad hoc" term? > > Frankly I am somewhat surprised that in Appendix I, under "Relationship > designators for contributors", there's no simple term, "Contributor". That > would be perfectly adequate in this situation. > > (Though as Bob Maxwell points out I could borrow that from the MARC relators > list.) > > > Benjamin Abrahamse > Cataloging Coordinator > Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems > MIT Libraries > 617-253-7137 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Ed Jones > Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 2:57 PM > To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors > > The principal drawback I see to using ad-hoc terms is that they necessarily > fall outside any structure relating terms in a hierarchical manner. "writer > of preface" will be identified as a specific kind of "contributor" because of > its presence in a 7XX field, but intermediate relationships, such those > relating "sculptor" to "artist" and "landscape architect" to "architect" will > not exist. > > There is also the likelihood of variability in the ad hoc terms used for > similar phenomena. Books not only have prefaces but forewords, introductions, > etc., so there will also be reason to create "writer of foreword", "writer of > introduction", etc., to specify these similar (but not identical) > relationships. > > This isn't to argue against creating these terms when needed--this is why it > is an open vocabulary--but to bear in mind that moving outside the defined > vocabulary terms has potential consequences in terms of linking data, > collapsing retrieval sets at a more general level, etc. > > Ed Jones > National University (San Diego, Calif.) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse > Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 11:00 AM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors > > Thanks for the replies and suggestions. > > --Ben > > Benjamin Abrahamse > Cataloging Coordinator > Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries > 617-253-7137 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff > Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 1:57 PM > To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors > > The LC-PCC Policy Statement for K.1 says "Use only terms from Appendix K if > supplying relationship designators in the shared LC/NACO Authority File. Do > not supply terms beyond those found in this Appendix." > But there is no similar restriction in the LC-PCC PS for J.1 or I.1, so it > would appear that there is no reason you couldn't say "writer of preface" > if you felt you need to be more specific. One could also suggest new terms > to be added to these appendices if the relationship is common enough that > having a specific term in RDA itself would be of benefit (and it would > provide more consistency as well). > > Adam > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Adam L. Schiff > Principal Cataloger > University of Washington Libraries > Box 352900 > Seattle, WA 98195-2900 > (206) 543-8409 > (206) 685-8782 fax > asch...@u.washington.edu > http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > On Tue, 16 Oct 2012, Joan Wang wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> These are general guidelines for using relationship designators. >> >> General Guidelines on Using Relationship Designators >> >> * Use relationship designators to indicate the specific nature of >> relationships between a resource and persons, >> families, and corporate bodies associated with that resource. >> * Use relationship designators at the level of specificity that is >> considered appropriate for the purposes of the >> agency creating the data. For example, the relationship between a >> screenplay and the screenwriter responsible >> for the work may be recorded using either the specific relationship >> designator screenwriter or the more general >> relationship designator author. >> * If none of the terms listed in this appendix is appropriate or >> sufficiently specific, use a term indicating the >> nature of the relationship as concisely as possible. >> * If the element used to record the relationship (e.g., creator) is >> considered sufficient for the purposes of the >> agency creating the data, do not use a relationship designator to >> indicate the specific nature of the >> relationship. >> Based on the guidelines, you can use "writer of preface" since it is more >> specific and concise enough (I think). >> >> Thanks, >> Joan Wang >> Illinois Heartland Library System >> >> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse <babra...@mit.edu> >> wrote: >> >> If we are cataloging a work, with a preface by someone other than the >> main author, RDA 20.2.1 says this >> is a relationship between a person and an expression. >> >> >> >> The examples in RDA 20 list this as "Writer of Added Commentary, >> Etc." In Appendix I.3, "Relationship >> Designators for Persons, Families, and Corporate Bodies Associated >> with an Expression" I see the >> following relationship designators: >> >> >> >> >> >> writer of added commentary A person, family, or corporate body >> contributing to an expression of a work >> by providing an interpretation or critical explanation of the original >> work. >> >> >> >> writer of added text A person, family, or corporate body contributing >> to an expression of a primarily >> non-textual work by providing text for the non-textual work (e.g., >> writing captions for photographs, >> descriptions of maps). >> >> >> >> If I wanted to give an access point for this person, and use a >> relationship designator, would I have to >> use "writer of added commentary" (which is the closest fit, I think, >> though not quite the same) or could >> I use "writer of preface", which is not on the list? >> >> >> >> Benjamin Abrahamse >> >> Cataloging Coordinator >> >> Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems >> >> MIT Libraries >> >> 617-253-7137 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Joan Wang >> Cataloger -- CMC >> Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) >> 6725 Goshen Road >> Edwardsville, IL 62025 >> 618.656.3216x409 >> 618.656.9401Fax >> >> >> >
