For what it's worth, PCC guidelines say to use the terms, not the codes.
Adam Schiff ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Tue, 25 Jun 2013, Dana Van Meter wrote:
Thank you Mark. I did re-read Appendix I.1 after I had already sent my question and realized that yes, it does say that you can use the more specific terms. Wish I had realized that before I sent my question! In the case of the $4 code, you're saying you would use just the $4 code, right? (And not a combination of $4 plus $e using the terminology accompanying the code in the MARC Code List for Relators?). I don't have a problem with using just the $4 code, I just wanted to be clear that you are saying you would just use the $4 code alone in cases where a term doesn't yet exist in the text of RDA. I did end up using author for the print lecture series I was asking about below. Thanks again for your help! -Dana From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of M. E. Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 4:29 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Can "Lecturer" be used as a valid relator term and do you have a good example of a DVD + Book RDA record? Dana Van Meter <vanme...@ias.edu> wrote: 1. Are we allowed to use, then, the more specific terms indented underneath the relationship designator performer (which is in bold), or are we to use performer only, to cover all those types of situations represented by the more specific indented & not in bold terms? The indented terms are also available for use: so for an actor, you can use "actor" or the broader term, "performer". If we can use the more specific indented terms, how were we supposed to know that? I wasn't sure if we are allowed to use these indented terms, or if they're just further (and more specific) examples of what is meant by the bold faced code. If we can use these more specific indented terms, I think it might be helpful if RDA specifically said that following the definition of a bold faced term ("or you can use these more specific terms", or something to that effect). I agree these could be formatted better for scanning: bold's easier to see than italic. But as to the last point, there's this paragraph under I.1: "Use relationship designators at the level of specificity that is considered appropriate for the purposes of the agency creating the data. For example, the relationship between a screenplay and the screenwriter responsible for the work can be recorded using either the specific relationship designator screenwriter or the more general relationship designator author." Are we able to use relationship designators or terms such as "music copyist" in a |e if they have a MARC 3-letter code, even if the term does not appear in RDA? Terms can come from outside of RDA (quoting I.1 again: "If none of the terms listed in this appendix is appropriate or sufficiently specific, use another concise term to indicate the nature of the relationship"). My opinion on code versus spelled out form: if using something from the MARC relator term list, add to the record as a $4 code. RDA 0.12 says that is using a list of terms from outside of RDA (like for relationship designators), these may be given "provided the encoding scheme is identified." Codes in $4s are as close as you can get to a flashing neon sign telling folks where the term (i.e., code) came from. 2. I have a print series which contains lectures, can |e performer be used for lecturers/speakers when the lecture is in print form? I tend to think of performer as limited to someone we can see and hear doing their craft. Words on a page don't cut it in that respect; the lecturer performed an authorial role to create the text. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex <http://www.minitex.umn.edu/>
