Thanks, Mac.  Sorry, I obviously meant 110, not 100.  And I was not thinking of 
single-artist exhibitions.  Multiple-artist exhibitions often are entered under 
corporate body, in the circumstances I mentioned.")

The designation "issuing body" is not listed in RDA as associated with the 
creator element, is it?  (That is, it's in I.2.2, not I.2.1.)  Is it 
nevertheless appropriate for use in a 110?  My impression is no, and my feeling 
is that even if that's acceptabe, it's unsatisfactory.  Yes, we know there are 
non-creator relationships which nonetheless get "main entry," like "defendant," 
but normally a 1xx field is filled by a creator.  When we enter this sort of 
exhibition catalog under a 110, it seems to me we are implying that the 
corporate body has creator status.  For such cases, shouldn't there be a 
relationship designator that is explicitly labeled as creator-compatible?  Even 
if "issuing body" can (semi?)-legitimately be used with a 110, it seems to me 
we'd be better served by a designator specific to the creator element.

The "sound" of the term "issuing body" itself is not bad.  Of course there is 
also "author," which RDA does say can be used for corporate bodies.  But I'm a 
little bothered by just "author," especially in the case of a catalog which 
combines texts credited to actual human authors with lots of reproductions.  
"Host institution," which is also in I.2.2, seems like a stretch to me.  Its 
definition in the appendix implies that the institution has little to do with 
the creation of the resource, even if they had lots to do with the mounting of 
the exhibition.

I wonder whether "corporate author" would be a good relationship designator for 
the creator element.  I guess logically it has the same problems as just plain 
"author," but it seems better for describing the relationship embodied in a 
110.  When I think of "corporate author" I imagine a somewhat more multifaceted 
relationship to the work than that which a personal "author" has, and its use 
with a corporate name seems potentially less confusing than just "author."

This might not be as important if PCC policy weren't to use relationship 
designators for all "creators."  A corporate body in a 110 looks like a creator 
to me.  If we have to draw a designator from I.2.1, I guess "author" is the 
best bet for my purposes at the moment, but it appears more people than just I 
aren't very happy with it.

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of J. McRee Elrod []
Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator

Pete Wilson asked:

>Here's what I hope is a quick question.  Say you're cataloging an exhibition=
>n catalog that is legitimately entered under corporate body--e.g., a museum=
>.  The museum put on the exhibit, published the catalog and owns all the ar=
>t involved.  What is the appropriate relationship designator for the 100 fo=
>r the museum?

Most exhibition catalogues of a single artist are entered under artist.
We use $eartist.

In the rare instance of an exhibition catalogue entered under the
museum (which would be 110 not 100), we use $ehost institution in the
absence of anything really appropriate.  Another possibility is
$eissuing body.

We only use $eauthor for persons.  At an IFLA meet, an European
cataloguer sniffed at me and said "corporate bodies don't write books,
people do".  There is a certain truth to that.

   __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (
  {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://
  ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________

Reply via email to