It shouldn't vary from library to library if catalogers follow the definitions of the relationship designators and apply the principal of assigning the most specific designator available. In such a case, I think most catalogers would arrive at using "author".

Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries

-----Original Message----- From: FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 7:04 AM
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator

I have to say that I was going with "creator" myself after reading a few
RDA-list comments.  But putting it out locally to our bibliographers, it's
been voted down in favor of "author".  So I guess it's going to vary from
one library to another.  As much of RDA appears to be doing.

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

Adam said:

... 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.

I doubt most patrons think of corporate bodies or families as "writing
a textual document".  People write, not corporate bodies or families.

We do our patrons no favours by redefining words to mean what most do
not understand them to mean.

I don't like "corporate author" any more than do you, so approve of
your suggestion to use $ecreator when a corporate body is in 110,
perhaps #econtributor when in 710, unless some other relationship
applies such as $eissuing body, $ehost institution?

It would help to have the category names in the relator lists, if we
are to use them in that way.  Or perhaps the text of this and other
LCPCCPS should be incorporated into RDA?

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

Reply via email to