J. McRee Elrod <m...@slc.bc.ca> wrote: > We have introduced "manufacturer" as a > relationship designator, needed for equipment manufacturers for > example. > > RDA is still very book centric, I suspect because the national > cataloguing agencies catalogue few of the nonbook nontextual resources > most of us catalogue. Our experience since 1979 is that if something > is needed, it will eventually happen. I expect to see "manufacturer" > added to the relationship terms. >
It won't be added to the relationship designator list in the back of RDA because it already exists as an element name in Chapter 21. Which is to say it's one of those broader, "fill-in-the-blank" terms. In MARC, because there's no 1xx or 7xx that is specifically defined for a publisher's name or a manufacturer's name or an owner's name or a creator's name, we use the $e/$j work-around to get these into the record. To use another mental example for a book where the publisher and printer are traced: Publisher (RDA 21.3): ABC Publishing (New York, N.Y.) Manufacturer (RDA 21.5): XYZ Printing Press - Specific kind of manufacturer (I.4.1): printer The 710s would be: 710 2- ABC Publishing (New York, N.Y.), $e publisher. 710 2- XYZ Printing Press, $e printer. - or - 710 2- XYZ Printing Press, $e manufacturer. The PCC guidelines prefer a more specific term over a general term. I tend to lean that way too, so the first XYZ heading would be preferred over the second. > I could understand not adding relationship designations at all, since > they are not RDA core, and legacy records lack them. True, but this refers to those designators in Appendix I, J, and K. In my reading, RDA has--how to put this, an expectation?--that if we're tracing a name, it should fit under one of the relationship categories in Chapters 19-22, even if the appendix designators aren't employed. For those who don't have access to RDA, there they are (I'm listing the names of the elements, not necessary what would show up in the MARC record or in the public display): Ch. 19 - Creator (e.g., author, composer, artist) - Other Person, Family, or Corporate Body Associated with a Work (e.g., directors, production companies, addressee of a letter, sponsoring bodies) Ch. 20 - Contributor (e.g., editors of various stripes, illustrators, movie soundtrack composers in records for the movie, etc.) Ch. 21 - Producer of an Unpublished Resource - Publisher - Distributor - Manufacturer - Other Person, Family, or Corporate Body Associated with a Manifestation Ch. 22 - Owner - Custodian - Other Person, Family, or Corporate Body Associated with an Item For the reasons I stated above concerning MARC's more generic 1xx and 7xx definitions, the category or categories under which a name heading would be set must be explicitly signified in the record, again using the $e/$j. See the first 710 example above. This is also my rationale for occasionally using the RDA elements "creator" and "contributor" in those situations where I could find no suitable specific terms in Appendix I. I'd prefer sourcing from sanctioned lists rather than making up words and phrases willy-nilly. I've even employed the generic "related work" (RDA 25.1) as a 7xx $i in lieu of missing Appendix J designators for the same reason. I'd much rather supply these high-level terms (when known) over giving none at all. > But if we are > using them, they should be added to all entries, even if it means > going outside the present list. But why make this entry for a > commercial enterprise? Special collections may want to highlight publishers in this manner in addition to making their presence felt in the 260/264 field--irrespective of their status as large commercial entities or one-man printing presses. I've done that before. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex <http://www.minitex.umn.edu/>
