The guideline says "if the element" is considered "sufficient for the purposes of *the agency creating the data*", meaning it's a local decision. Some agencies might consider the 100 field sufficient and never record anything at all as a relationship designator in that field. Others might not. I don't think these guidelines were meant to restrict use of relationship designators by agencies that do not consider the element alone sufficient.
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. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Deborah Fritz Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 3:19 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors Bob, I agree with you that we *should* be able to add 'creator' as a relationship designator, but RDA explicitly says: Under (18.5.1.3<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/18.5.1.3.html>): "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." And under (I.1<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/I.1.html>): "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." To me, these statements are saying that we are only to add these terms when we need to indicate the relationship more precisely than the relationship element itself does, e.g., we do not add the designator 'publisher' to data provided under the relationship element 'Publisher' because the element name explains the relationship. I would like to see that instruction changed, so that we don't go looking for a designator, can't find it, and have to remember, oh yes, I don't add it because the element name is sufficient. For example, under publisher (1.4.2<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/I.4.2.html>) , only the term 'broadcaster' is listed, because the element *name* 'Publisher' is supposed to be sufficient. It is undoubtedly more 'efficient' in computer terms to have the element label perform the function of the relationship designator when it can, but this concept is a good deal more difficult to explain to the humans recording the data. While we are using MARC, however, I certainly agree with you that we have to add the element label as a designator term, since the RDA relationship element name 'Publisher' (21.3<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/21.3.html>) is not explicit in MARC 710. Deborah - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. debo...@marcofquality.com<mailto:debo...@marcofquality.com> www.marcofquality.com<http://www.marcofquality.com> -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 8:34 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors 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
