Re: [RDA-L] Help with relationship designator
Hi Mac. I also feel a little uncomfortable using contributor type
relationship designators in a 100 field with the creator type relationship
designators, but I thought that doing so is supposed to be acceptable
according to the PCC Guidelines for the Application of Relationship
Designators in Bibliographic Records which Adolfo Tarango referenced on
5/17 in response to the thread Designator Relator Code
(http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg09665.html).
The examples in the PCC Guidelines seem to indicate that one can use
creator and contributor type relationship designators in the same field,
as long as they are entered in WEMI order. One could also use a
combination of 100 700 fields for the same person, with only creator
relationship designators in the 100 field, and contributor type
designators in the 700 field. My institution has opted to accept AACR2
records and not upgrade them as we don't have the manpower required to do
so, but create original records in RDA. I'm starting to feel like just
whimping out on this one and accepting the AACR2 copy, but adding a 700
for Garfinkle.
I also see an answer in PCC Guideline 3 to another question of mine about
whether we can use the more specific relator terms which are indented
under the bold terms: Within a hierarchy of relationship designators,
prefer a specific term to a general one if it is easily determined. For
example, use librettist rather than author for the creator of a libretto.
Thanks again for your help.
-Dana
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 7:49 PM
To: vanme...@ias.edu
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Help with relationship designator
Dana Van Meter said:
I would prefer something more along the lines of |e author of added
commentary, rather than |e author, but that doesn't exist.
These two do exist:
writer of added commentary
writer of added text
but if added, the relator terms would be longer than the entry itself.
What is that going to look like in the OPAC?
Is contributor a valid relationship designator?
It's not in the list, but I was told (to my incomprehension) that it is
valid since it is a named category in RDA. If such named categories are
valid as relators, they should be added to the term list.
Terms in the list but not in the codes should be added. Codes not in the
list should be added as terms. We were told that codes would be updated
for lcking terms, but I've not heard of the terms being updated by RDA
categories or MARC relator codes. The terms and codes should agree.
Perhaps one reason I thought the 100 and 700 should be exchanged, is that
the long list of reltors seems more logical on an added entry.
Not all the terms you are adding to the 100 seem approprite for a main
entry.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Help with relationship designator
Are relationship designators required?
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:01 PM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
Dana van Meter said:
The examples in the PCC Guidelines seem to indicate that one can use
creator and contributor type relationship designators in the same field,
as long as they are entered in WEMI order.
Yes you may. But I still don't agree with the choice of main entry.
The poet is author, and needs only the one $e or $4. The editor
needs a whole string, including translator, which is not a main entry
role.
One could also use a combination of 100 700 fields for the same
person, with only creator relationship designators in the 100 field,
and contributor type designators in the 700 field
I don't think so. IMNSHO you should not have two entries for the same
person in the same record, not even real name and pseudonym.
I'm starting to feel like just whimping out on this one and accepting
the AACR2 copy, but adding a 700 for Garfinkle.
Please add it to the master record, whatever you decide on locally.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Help with relationship designator
They are not core in RDA. Required elements are clearly indicated as core
when you look at the RDA instructions.
For PCC policies, I suggest you use the PCC list.
- Barbara Tillett, JSC Chair
On Tuesday, May 28, 2013, Gene Fieg wrote:
Are relationship designators required?
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:01 PM, J. McRee Elrod
m...@slc.bc.cajavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'm...@slc.bc.ca');
wrote:
Dana van Meter said:
The examples in the PCC Guidelines seem to indicate that one can use
creator and contributor type relationship designators in the same field,
as long as they are entered in WEMI order.
Yes you may. But I still don't agree with the choice of main entry.
The poet is author, and needs only the one $e or $4. The editor
needs a whole string, including translator, which is not a main entry
role.
One could also use a combination of 100 700 fields for the same
person, with only creator relationship designators in the 100 field,
and contributor type designators in the 700 field
I don't think so. IMNSHO you should not have two entries for the same
person in the same record, not even real name and pseudonym.
I'm starting to feel like just whimping out on this one and accepting
the AACR2 copy, but adding a 700 for Garfinkle.
Please add it to the master record, whatever you decide on locally.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca javascript:_e({},
'cvml', 'm...@slc.bc.ca');)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'gf...@cst.edu');
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
--
Dr. Barbara B. Tillett, Ph.D.
Chair, Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA
Re: [RDA-L] Help with relationship designator
Dana Van Meter said:
Not having a fuller list of terms in RDA is really a failing of RDA
Not to mention not haviving them in one alphabetical order. For a single
alphabetical list, see the MRI 21.0D:
http://special-cataloguing.com/mris/21
You need to sign up for a free account to consult.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Help with relationship designator
Suggestions for additional terms are always welcome. - Barbara Tillett, JSC
Chair
On Tuesday, May 28, 2013, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Dana Van Meter said:
Not having a fuller list of terms in RDA is really a failing of RDA
Not to mention not haviving them in one alphabetical order. For a single
alphabetical list, see the MRI 21.0D:
http://special-cataloguing.com/mris/21
You need to sign up for a free account to consult.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca javascript:;)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Dr. Barbara B. Tillett, Ph.D.
Chair, Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA
Re: [RDA-L] Help with relationship designator
Dana Van Meter posted:
In other words, would I also need a |e of editor, or if not editor, then a
|e editor of compilation. I think my major problem is in understanding
exactly what a compilation is. LC , under AACR2 did not even have a 700
for Garfinkle ...
Omitting the 700 for the poet is an error it seems to me, not an AACR2
difference. If you are not replacing the AACR2 record, I think you
should add the 700.
U assume the Cutter is for the poet. If not, it should be, regardless
of who is 100.
In your local RDA record, or if replacing the AACR2 record, and if the
poems are half the content, I would consider coding the poet as 100
$eauthor (too bad poet is not in the list), and the editor as:
700 $econttributor.$eeditor of compilation,$etranslator.
You could do a longer line up:
700 $eannotator,$ecompiler,$econtributor,$eeditor,$etranslator.
The two RDA relaltionship phrases below also fit her roles, but IMNSHO
are too long to use in conjunction with $eeditor of complilation; if
wanting to use just one, that is the one I would use; it combines
compiling and editing.
writer of added commentary
writer of added text
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Help with relationship designator
My earlier detailed answer seems to have gone missing.
Dana VanMeter posted:
Under AACR2, LC has Levine Melammed as the author. About half of the book
is the poems by Garfinkle ...
It's not AACR2's fault that there is no 700 for Garfinkle. You should
add that 700 if not replacing the AACR2 record with the RDA one.
Since the poems are half the book, and the point of the book, I would
make Garfinkle 100, with $eauthor or $4aut. (Too bad poet is not in
the RDA relator list.) You would also have a 600 for Garfunkle, since
the 100 indicator for also subject is no more. (That dated from when
one did not print that subject card for an undivided card dictionary
catalogue.)
I would make Melammed a 700 with $eeditor of collection,$etranslator
or $4com$4edt$4trl.
There are two other RDA relator phrases, either of which would fit,
but I think they would be too long in conjunction with editor of
collection:
writer of added commentary
writer of added text
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Help with relationship designator
Thank you Mac. I also thought not having a 700 for Garfinkle was an
error, and I will be adding one for her in my record.
After thinking on this a bit more I'm starting to feel that LC considered
this book to be a commentary and cataloged it following the rule for a
Commentary (21.13B1): If the chief source of information of the item
being catalogued presents the item as a commentary, enter it as such (see
21.1-21.7). Make an added entry under the heading appropriate to the text
and this is why Melammed has the main entry. And also rule 21.6B1: If,
in a work of shared responsibility, principal responsibility is attributed
(by the wording or the layout of the chief source of information of the
item being catalogued) to one person or corporate body, enter under the
heading for that person or body ... Make added entries under the headings
for other persons or bodies involved if there are not more than two. I
don't have a problem with following LC's assessment and having Melammed in
the 100 and Garfinkle in a 700. On the title page only Melammed is
represented as being responsible in terms of the layout, Garfinkle is only
mentioned under her maiden name in the other title information. If
following LC's AACR2 interpretation in upgrading to RDA I'd follow rule
6.27.1.6 Commentary, Annotations, Illustrative Content, Etc., Added to a
Previously Existing Work.
I think that for Melammed I will add 3 relationship designators:
|eauthor,|etranslator,|eeditor of compilation. I would prefer something
more along the lines of |e author of added commentary, rather than |e
author, but that doesn't exist. Is contributor a valid relationship
designator? I don't see it in RDA itself, even though there is a MARC
Relator Code for it (ctb). I see that I.1 states If none of the terms
listed in this appendix is appropriate or sufficiently specific, use
another concise term to indicate the nature of the relationship, and I'm
wondering how much freedom we have to coin terms, or if this is frowned
upon and we should wait for JSC to come up with new relationship
designators?
Thanks again for your help Mac!
-Dana
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 7:33 PM
To: vanme...@ias.edu
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Help with relationship designator
Dana Van Meter posted:
In other words, would I also need a |e of editor, or if not editor,
then a
|e editor of compilation. I think my major problem is in understanding
exactly what a compilation is. LC , under AACR2 did not even have a
700 for Garfinkle ...
Omitting the 700 for the poet is an error it seems to me, not an AACR2
difference. If you are not replacing the AACR2 record, I think you should
add the 700.
U assume the Cutter is for the poet. If not, it should be, regardless of
who is 100.
In your local RDA record, or if replacing the AACR2 record, and if the
poems are half the content, I would consider coding the poet as 100
$eauthor (too bad poet is not in the list), and the editor as:
700 $econttributor.$eeditor of compilation,$etranslator.
You could do a longer line up:
700 $eannotator,$ecompiler,$econtributor,$eeditor,$etranslator.
The two RDA relaltionship phrases below also fit her roles, but IMNSHO are
too long to use in conjunction with $eeditor of complilation; if wanting
to use just one, that is the one I would use; it combines compiling and
editing.
writer of added commentary
writer of added text
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Help with relationship designator
Dana Van Meter said:
I would prefer something more along the lines of |e author of added
commentary, rather than |e author, but that doesn't exist.
These two do exist:
writer of added commentary
writer of added text
but if added, the relator terms would be longer than the entry itself.
What is that going to look like in the OPAC?
Is contributor a valid relationship designator?
It's not in the list, but I was told (to my incomprehension) that it
is valid since it is a named category in RDA. If such named
categories are valid as relators, they should be added to the term
list.
Terms in the list but not in the codes should be added. Codes not in
the list should be added as terms. We were told that codes would be
updated for lcking terms, but I've not heard of the terms being updated by
RDA categories or MARC relator codes. The terms and codes should agree.
Perhaps one reason I thought the 100 and 700 should be exchanged, is
that the long list of reltors seems more logical on an added entry.
Not all the terms you are adding to the 100 seem approprite for a main
entry.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
[RDA-L] Help with relationship designator
Hello, I am attempting to upgrade an AACR2 LC record to RDA. The LCCN is 2012032101. This book contains two small collections of Ladino poems by a Shephardic Jewish woman who grew up and lived a part of her life in Salonika Greece. These poems were never published. One of the collections documents daily life and customs of Shepardic Jews in Salonika prior to the Nazi invasion of the city. The second collection documents the miseries that the Germans inflicted on Salonika, 1941-1943. The poems or Coplas were written by Bouena Sarfatty Garfinkle 30 years after the War, and she later gave them to Renee Levine Melammed. Levine Melammed was not able to begin working with the poems until several years later, by which time Garfinkle had died. The poems were organized by Garfinkle in to the two collections mentioned above, however the collections were not organized chronically or by subject, they were merely numbered as she composed them. Levine Melammed, in addition to providing a short background of Garfinkle's life before, during, and shortly after the War, reorganized each collection of poems in to smaller sub-themes, but she included the original number that Garfinkle had assigned to each copla beside it. In this book Levine Melammed has presented the Ladino verses and provided an English translation on facing pages. In addition she has provided a glossary for non- Ladino words used by Garfinkle in the coplas which were borrowed from other languages (Arabic, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Italian, Portuguese and Turkish). Under AACR2, LC has Levine Melammed as the author. About half of the book is the poems by Garfinkle, the other half is by Levine Melammed (and again this includes: a brief history of Garfinkle's life before, during, and shortly after the War, and brief description of what life was like for Jews in Salonika during this same time period; the glossary of words borrowed from other languages which appear in the Ladino poems; bibliographic notes; a bibliography, and indexes). In LC's AACR2 record Garfinkle appears only as a subject. I feel that Garfinkle should receive a 700 as well in this record, but my major problem is what relationship designators to assign to Levine Melammed. She is the author of material that is essentially editorial matter to accompany the true focus of the book, the Ladino poems, however there is more to this editorial matter than just a glossary, bibliographic notes and indexes. She has also provided relevant historical background material to explain the topical matter of the poems, so I don't mind Levine Melammed being in a 100 field and I will add a |e of author under RDA. I will also add a |e translator. My problem is in how to describe her other roles in producing the book. She is a compiler of sorts, and an editor of sorts, as she re-organized the collections of the poems in to sub-themes, and she has also created the glossary, the notes, and the indexes. But I'm having trouble deciding how best to describe her non-author roles-is she also to be considered an editor, a compiler, or an editor of a compilation? This is a compilation of sorts, in that these poems have never been published before and Levine Melammed did have a role in how they are presented, but there is more to the book than the poems, she did write accompanying material. Can one have a |e for author and |e for compiler at the same time? And if I have a |e for compiler, does that imply editing as well? In other words, would I also need a |e of editor, or if not editor, then a |e editor of compilation. I think my major problem is in understanding exactly what a compilation is. LC , under AACR2 did not even have a 700 for Garfinkle, but with RDA's greater focus on relationships, I think this book would perhaps be considered a compilation of sorts, in which case I should have a 700 for Garfinkle, and at least one 100 |e that would indicate that the book is a compilation. If anyone can help me with my understanding of what a compilation really is, and how you would handle this book I would greatly appreciate your advice. Apologies for the repetition in this message--it certainly is reflective of my floundering about with RDA though! :-( Thanks very much. Sincerely, Dana Van Meter Catalog Librarian Historical Studies-Social Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540
