Hi Mac. I also feel a little uncomfortable using contributor type relationship designators in a 100 field with the creator type relationship designators, but I thought that doing so is supposed to be acceptable according to the PCC Guidelines for the Application of Relationship Designators in Bibliographic Records which Adolfo Tarango referenced on 5/17 in response to the thread Designator Relator Code (http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg09665.html). The examples in the PCC Guidelines seem to indicate that one can use creator and contributor type relationship designators in the same field, as long as they are entered in WEMI order. One could also use a combination of 100 & 700 fields for the same person, with only creator relationship designators in the 100 field, and contributor type designators in the 700 field. My institution has opted to accept AACR2 records and not upgrade them as we don't have the manpower required to do so, but create original records in RDA. I'm starting to feel like just whimping out on this one and accepting the AACR2 copy, but adding a 700 for Garfinkle.
I also see an answer in PCC Guideline 3 to another question of mine about whether we can use the more specific relator terms which are indented under the bold terms: "Within a hierarchy of relationship designators, prefer a specific term to a general one if it is easily determined. For example, use librettist rather than author for the creator of a libretto. Thanks again for your help. -Dana -----Original Message----- From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca] Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 7:49 PM To: vanme...@ias.edu Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Help with relationship designator Dana Van Meter said: >I would prefer something more along the lines of |e author of added <commentary, rather than |e author, but that doesn't exist. These two do exist: writer of added commentary writer of added text but if added, the relator terms would be longer than the entry itself. What is that going to look like in the OPAC? >Is contributor a valid relationship >designator? It's not in the list, but I was told (to my incomprehension) that it is valid since it is a named category in RDA. If such named categories are valid as relators, they should be added to the term list. Terms in the list but not in the codes should be added. Codes not in the list should be added as terms. We were told that codes would be updated for lcking terms, but I've not heard of the terms being updated by RDA categories or MARC relator codes. The terms and codes should agree. Perhaps one reason I thought the 100 and 700 should be exchanged, is that the long list of reltors seems more logical on an added entry. Not all the terms you are adding to the 100 seem approprite for a main entry. __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
