Mac Elrod wrote: > By definition isn't any person, body, or family in 1XX a creator?
No, the entity in the 1XX field may be an "Other Person, Family, or Corporate Body Associated with a Work" (RDA 19.3). Most of these seem to be legal works or religious works. > For systems which list the 700$t titles along with 245, 246, and 247 > titles under an author's name, won't having no relators when the 700 > has a $t be an inconsistency? I think it might be wise for most of our current MARC-based systems to ignore the relationship designators in index displays. In individual record displays the information may very well be helpful, but treating relationship designators as part of the *heading* for purposes of searching and sorting will only cause problems. Subfield $e (or $j in X11) is a *relationship designator*--it is NOT part of the access point as defined by RDA. The content of subfield $e in an RDA record is actually something different from the content of that same subfield in an AACR2 record. In the latter, it's information that's actually part of the access point. But in the former, it's information relating the name to the resource, but it's not part of the access point; it's just that in a MARC record, we haven't figured out any other place to put the relationship designator. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library [email protected] (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
