Thomas said: "The basic problem is then thrown back to MARC where one has an undifferentiated 710 field (corporate body could be a creator, other associated with the work, contributor, publisher, etc. - none of these top-level relationship elements are in the list of designators)."
"Creator", "Contributor", "Publisher", and other top-level elements are actually in the list at http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html But "Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated with a Work" is not there. However RDA appendix I.1 says: "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." So if we can think of a more specific term, we can use it in $e (notice that the MARC instructions for $e do not mention the code list); the problem being, of course, that there will be no corresponding $4 code, unless we can get our new term approved and added to the list in I.1 and the MARC Code List for Relators. As Thomas points out, if we do not add Relationship Designators, we have no way of knowing what the relationships are in MARC, because the tag numbers will not tell us about exact relationships. Even though Relationship Designators are not RDA-Core, I believe that the reason that they are not core is that the top-level relationship will always be present as an element, and so that element label will be used to express the relationship, if no more specific designator is provided. So, we should make every attempt to add relationship designators in our MARC records, even if they are just the top-level ones. The one problem being that crazy long "Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated with a Work" for which MARC has no entry. So this is where we can invoke the permission to come up with our own term. I'm not going to take a stab at a suggestion for this resource, however. Deborah - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. <mailto:debo...@marcofquality.com> debo...@marcofquality.com <http://www.marcofquality.com> www.marcofquality.com From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 5:35 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] (OCoLC)829311087 In looking at the examples in RDA 19.3.1.3 for "Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated with a Work" there are several instances where a specific relationship designator is not in the initial phrasing for the example. So when one sees "Authorized access point representing the dedicatee for" one can take that mean that the relationship designator "dedicatee" is used. When one sees "Authorized access point representing the corporate body associated with the work for" then no relationship designator is used. The top-level elements for Work relationships are: Creator Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated with a Work So if one can't see a match in the list of relationship designators in RDA Appendix I.2.2 (for Others associated with a Work) then no relationship designator is assigned. The basic problem is then thrown back to MARC where one has an undifferentiated 710 field (corporate body could be a creator, other associated with the work, contributor, publisher, etc. - none of these top-level relationship elements are in the list of designators). Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: March-07-13 5:17 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] (OCoLC)829311087 I don't believe there is any relationship designator yet defined in RDA appropriate for this particular relationship (and lots of others). The place this relationship fits into is I.2.2 (Relationship Designators for Other Persons, Families, or Corporate Bodies Associated with a Work). Not much there that fits this! The closest seem to be "host institution", "Issuing body", and "sponsoring body", but none of them is really appropriate. I would just omit subfield $e, since it is not a required element. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Michael Borries Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 3:57 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] (OCoLC)829311087 I come to the collective wisdom looking for guidance. I have cataloged this record according to RDA standards (I hope!). What troubles me is the 710 for Polaroid Collections. I have no idea what to use for the subfield $e except perhaps "contributor," and that doesn't seem correct. The term "author" would seem to suggest that the Polaroid Collections should be the preferred entry, but this book does not seem to fall into any of the categories for corporate authorship. I did use the subdivision "Catalogs" in one of the 610 fields, but this doesn't seem to be an "official" catalog, although all the illustrations are of photographs held by the Polaroid Collections, and Barbara Hitchcock is the director of the Collections. Thoughts? Any and all corrections also gratefully received, especially for the 300 field. Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu
