I'd go for the greater granularity, personally. "Writer of foreword" sounds loads better than the characteristically wordy "writer of added commentary", which would, as Steven says, also be misleading. Although even better would be just "foreword" - although inconsistent in relationship, it's briefer and is all you need. I'm sure if you see a heading with it after the name few would mistake them as BEING the foreword.....
Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Arakawa, Steven Sent: 08 December 2012 19:40 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designators for commentators and corporate bodies Was: Relationship designators (with typo corrections; thanks Appendix I definition: "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. I do not think of authors of introductions as writers of added commentary; these seem to be separate functions based on the examples in 6.27.1.6. The MARC code list for relators has "Commentator for written text" and, with perhaps too much granularity, "Author of afterword, colophon, etc." and "Author of introduction, etc." The function of introductions in my experience is often closer to a blurb or a "My friend x is as funny today as when we were at Harvard." A commentary seems to me to be a generally scholarly or pseudo-scholarly explication of the original text. Not that I have a better suggestion. On a "related" note, what would be the best relationship designator for a corporate body functioning as a creator when applying RDA 19.2.1.1.1 a. "works of an administrative nature" -- b. "works that reflect the collective thought" or c. "report the collective activity" of the body? My reading of "enacting jurisdiction" as a designator term would be that it should not be applied to the annual report of a government department--the designation seems to apply to a limited set of legal applications, such as constitutions. "Sponsoring body" also seems to be intended for a narrow set of conditions and in any case is in the category of other corporate bodies associated with the work rather than creator. "Author" seems too broad. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation Catalog & Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 5:01 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designators (with typo corrections; thanks writer of added commentary ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax [email protected] http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Fri, 7 Dec 2012, Goldfarb, Kathie wrote: > I have been reading the discussions that there are too many relationship > designators, differences between types of editors, etc. > > However, reading through this list - is there a relationship designator for > the person who wrote the foreword? The book in hand is: Thorton Wilder, a > life ... foreword by Edward Albee. > > If I use Edward Albee as an added entry, what relationship designator should > I use? Or none? With RDA is it expected that all name added entries have > the relationship to the book spelled out? I am using some of the books I am > cataloging today to 'practice' some of the RDA changes. > > Thanks > kathie > > Kathleen Goldfarb > Technical Services Librarian > College of the Mainland > Texas City, TX 77539 > 409 933 8202 > > ? Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email.
