Since "author" is defined in the RDA definition of the designator as pertaining to persons, families, and corporate bodies, I would use "author." How exactly does having a more specific designator "corporate author" provide additional benefits? It would be possible to make a proposal for a new designator "corporate author" but then you'd also need "family author" and would need to redefine "author" as only pertaining to persons. If you aren't happy with "author", you could always go one step up and use "creator", but if the relationship is one of authorship (writing a textual document) then you should use the designator "author" that is defined for that specific purpose.

Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries

-----Original Message----- From: FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 5:52 AM
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator

I'd like to jump off this discussion ever so slightly & ask what
relationship designator one would use for a 110 corporate agency that is
charged with issuing a quarterly report.   I'm still thinking about these
GAO reports in which the report is this agency's findings on a specified
topic; I feel that the 110 is merited over the 710.

We're not happy with |e author either.  We've been using  a staggered |e
author, |e issuing agency [which is how we are finding the records in OCLC].
I am assuming the latter is valid in a 110 if listed after a creator
designation such as "author" or "corporate author"

I've been scanning the MARC code list for relators to see if I can find
something other than author, & am not coming up with anything that makes any
more sense as a creator designation.  Clearly compiler is inappropriate for

|e corporate author makes more sense to me than author & I think it would to
our patrons as well.  I'm debating whether we need to go back & edit any
110s we have with |e issuing agency.   But to what?  Is this a proposal that
needs to go through the fast track process I have read about?

Patricia Fogler
Chief, Cataloging Section  (AUL/LTSC)
Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center
DSN 493-2135   Comm (334) 953-2135

-----Original Message-----
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of John Hostage
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator

I agree that "author" is unsatisfactory as a relationship designator for a
corporate body.  I don't think it meets most users' expectations of what an
author is.

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

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.


Reply via email to