Like one that would be used for a particular work by Nathaniel Hawthorne, I suppose?
Kevin > -----Original Message----- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Wagstaff, D John > Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:23 PM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator > > Can anyone point me to an "inappropriate relationship designator"? That > sounds a lot more fun... > > (Sorry, but I couldn't resist.) > > John > > > John Wagstaff > Head, Music & Performing Arts Library > University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign > 1114 W. Nevada Street > Urbana IL61801 > Tel. 217-244-4070 > e-mail: wagst...@illinois.edu > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod > Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:20 PM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator > > Lynne asked: > > >In this case, do I simply add the corporate name heading (access point) > >without any relationship designator even though the Natural History > >Museum holds the copyright ... > > Kevin advises no relationship designator if none applies, Another poster > has advised that if no exact term works, use the larger category. even if > not the the lists. (The MRIs add those categories to its list.) In this case > you might consider $ecreator. The body has a more important > relationship to the item than just holding the copyright. > > You are right, I think, that the terms from the $4 code list should not be > used in $e. You could use the $4 code, but as I said, the relationship is > larger and more important than just copyright holder, so I would not. > > > __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) > {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ > ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
