[RDA-L] 240 uniform title

[FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC]

I'm trying to explain the use of a 240 uniform title in a bibliographic record 
clearly to my staff.   I have a tenuous grasp on uniform titles and welcome any 
direction to specific training in depth about the choices of MARC tags in 
different situations.

I understand that the title in question "Nuclear weapons : ‡b factors leading 
to cost increases with the uranium processing facility" (OCLC863158972 for 
those with access) is the first of a predicted quarterly report.  Is it 
disingenuous to ask whether it was appropriate to create this 240 in the record 
for the first of the series when RDA LC-PCC PS for 6.27.1.9 says under General: 
 "Do not predict a conflict". 

My understanding is that one waited until the 2nd report (the conflict) 
appeared in order to make the uniform title in this situation.  Or 
alternatively; create a serial record.

Can someone clarify?
Many thanks.

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

  

Re: [RDA-L] "Faculty" in 7.9.3.3

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

I agree that "degree-granting institution" doesn't really fit for the 
department in which a thesis was prepared, although it's certainly very 
useful to record this relationship. There doesn't seem to be anything 
else which can be used: "Host institution" or "sponsoring body" would 
certainly be a far stretch.


Might this be a case for an additional relationship designator under 
I.2.2, something like "institution where a work has been prepared"? 
Admittedly, this sounds awful, but it still might come in handy for 
preparing department bibliographies and the like.


In addition, there's the possibility to record the department as an 
affiliation of the person according to 9.13.


By the way: Why is affiliation an attribute of the person? It seems to 
me that this is a relationship between a person and a corporate body, so 
it should be in chapter 32. In the German authority file, we have a link 
between the record for the person and the record for the corporate body 
in such a case.


Heidrun


On 03.12.2013 00:27, Rose-Ann Movsovic wrote:

I'm reckoning that the University is the degree-granting institution, the 
department is just where the researcher was based. If we contributed records to 
OCLC we would strip out the department name and just leave the University.

However, I should probably stop procrastinating and just amend the template 
without worrying about the $e!

--
Rose-Ann Movsovic
Collections Manager
University of Reading Library

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of John Hostage 
[host...@law.harvard.edu]
Sent: 02 December 2013 22:04
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] "Faculty" in 7.9.3.3

RDA appendix I.2.2 has the relationship designator "degree granting 
institution".

--
John Hostage
Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger //
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services //
Langdell Hall 194 //
Cambridge, MA 02138
host...@law.harvard.edu
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)



-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Rose-Ann Movsovic
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 05:18
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] "Faculty" in 7.9.3.3

I don't know the answer to this question but locally we add an entry for the
name of the department the author belonged to because our users want to
be able to retrieve lists of theses by department. I haven't come up with a
relationship designator for that which is holding up our converting the thesis
template to RDA.

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun
Wiesenmüller
Sent: 02 December 2013 09:57
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] "Faculty" in 7.9.3.3

I'm not quite certain about the meaning of "faculty" in the element
"Dissertation or Thesis Information".

7.9.3.3 reads: "Record the name of the granting institution or faculty."
I assume that the example "University College, London" is supposed to
illustrate a case where the degree is granted by a faculty rather than the
university (which would be the University of London). Is this correct?

The reason for my question is that I'm wondering about German doctoral
theses. There, usually both the name of the university and the name of the
faculty within this university are given, e.g.: "Dissertation zur Erlangung des
Doktorgrades der Fakultaet fuer Agrarwissenschaften der Georg-August-
Universitaet Goettingen" (i.e. "Thesis for obtaining the doctoral degree of
the Faculty for Agricultural Sciences of the Georg August University
Goettingen").

Up to now, in such a case we've only recorded the name of the university,
but not the name of the faculty. I also can't remember ever having seen an
AACR2 record including a faculty of a German university.
This impression fits in with the example "Freie Universitaet Berlin" in
7.9.3.3 (without information about the respective faculty, which probably
was given on the source of information as well).

My feeling is that in Germany, a faculty is basically an administrative 
division.
It's not at all comparable to the independent character of the University
College London (Wikipedia says: "For most practical purposes, ranging from
admissions to funding, the constituent colleges operate as individual
universities, and some have recently obtained the power to award their own
degrees whilst remaining in the federation."). So I would prefer to give the
name of the university only, without the faculty.

How would you handle the case of the German universities and when would
you use the "faculty"?

Heidrun


--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany 

Re: [RDA-L] "Faculty" in 7.9.3.3

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

John,


I think the RDA instruction was probably worded that way to allow freedom to 
record whatever feels most useful and to take into account varying amounts of 
information available.  In most cases it's enough to record the university 
name, but some libraries feel very particular about recording the name of the 
department or faculty for dissertations from their own university.


Yes, I can quite understand that, although I now think this mixes up two 
different things: The corporate body which grants the degree and the 
faculty or department where the thesis was prepared.




  I don't think the University College London was meant to represent a faculty,


I suppose you're right. I just had the expectation that if there are two 
cases in an instruction, and four examples are given, then at least one 
of them would illustrate the second case - and the University College 
was the only one which stuck somewhat out.


Perhaps the examples group could look out for a suitable example here?



  but the Fakultaet fuer Agrarwissenschaften would be an example of a faculty.


It's definitely a faculty, but does it fit the text of the instruction: 
"the granting institution or faculty"?


I had never thought about this before, but now that I do I think that 
it's always the university which grants the degree, and not the faculty. 
I just checked my own degree certificate and it says (I translate, as 
not everybody's command of German is as good as John's): "The Friedrich 
Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, represented by the Dean of the 
Philosophical Faculty 1, ... , hereby grants the degree of Master of 
Arts ...". I also looked up some federal university laws, which gave me 
the same impression.


Heidrun


--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] "Faculty" in 7.9.3.3

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Mac,


Another of those ambiguous English words.  It can mean the teaching
staff of an educational institution.  But in this context, it means a
subunit of a university which grants degrees.  In other words, the
body which granted the degree should be in 502. $b.
   
(...)


The institution in 502 $b may be traced with $edegree granting
institution,  whether the university or the school (aka faculty)
within the university.  Professional schools such as law, medicine,
and theology often grant degrees rather than the larger university.


Have you got a good example for such a school/faculty which actually 
grants its own degrees (instead of the larger university)? As I said in 
my last mail, in Germany I believe the subunits do not grant degrees in 
their own right. But it may be different in the Anglo-American world.


Heidrun


--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

[RDA-L] Habilitation theses

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

On a related note:

The other day, we were wondering how habilitation theses should be 
treated under RDA. These are quite common in Germany. In case you're not 
familiar with this European concept: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habilitation


Some universities grant the academic degree of "Dr. habil." to somebody 
who has successfully completed his or her habilitation. But in many 
cases, there is no special academic degree connected with the 
habilitation. From then on, the successful candidate can call him- or 
herself a "Privatdozent" (private lecturer, PD), while they are waiting 
for a professorship, but this is no academic degree.


According to the German cataloging rules, we only record 
"Habilitationsschrift" (habilitation thesis), but no specific degree - 
just as for doctoral theses, we only record "Dissertation" (without 
distinguishing between e.g. "Dr. phil." and "Dr. med."). Under RDA, do 
we now need to find out whether it's a case of "Dr. habil." or not? And 
what about the cases where no special academic degree is granted?


Heidrun


--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] Habilitation theses

[M. E.]

Heidrun Wiesenmüller  wrote:

> The other day, we were wondering how habilitation theses should be treated
> under RDA. These are quite common in Germany. In case you're not familiar
> with this European concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habilitation
>
>
I don't have an answer to your question, but an observation that the old
ALA cataloging rules and AACR1 had special instructions on
Habilitationsschriften.  These disappeared under AACR2.


-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Habilitation theses

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

Since "habilitation" is not an Anglo-American institution, I would be surprised 
indeed if RDA discusses it. (Just to confirm--searching the Toolkit for 
"habilitation" or any of its variants returns no hits.) So I think this is an 
area where the (Continental) European cataloging community will have to figure 
out what it wants to do and make a proposal to the JSC (if it is necessary).

It looks like typically it's just recorded in a 500 note that is formatted 
somewhat similar to your standard 502... zB: 

#778631115
Ethnizität, Islam, Reformasi : die Evolution der Konfliktlinien im 
Parteiensystem Malaysias / Andreas Ufen.
500 $a The author's Habilitationsschrift--Universität Hamburg, 2010.

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 12:15 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: [RDA-L] Habilitation theses

On a related note:

The other day, we were wondering how habilitation theses should be treated 
under RDA. These are quite common in Germany. In case you're not familiar with 
this European concept: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habilitation

Some universities grant the academic degree of "Dr. habil." to somebody who has 
successfully completed his or her habilitation. But in many cases, there is no 
special academic degree connected with the habilitation. From then on, the 
successful candidate can call him- or herself a "Privatdozent" (private 
lecturer, PD), while they are waiting for a professorship, but this is no 
academic degree.

According to the German cataloging rules, we only record "Habilitationsschrift" 
(habilitation thesis), but no specific degree - just as for doctoral theses, we 
only record "Dissertation" (without distinguishing between e.g. "Dr. phil." and 
"Dr. med."). Under RDA, do we now need to find out whether it's a case of "Dr. 
habil." or not? And what about the cases where no special academic degree is 
granted?

Heidrun


--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] "Faculty" in 7.9.3.3

[J. McRee Elrod]

Heidrun asked:

>Have you got a good example for such a school/faculty which actually 
>grants its own degrees ...

When next in my doctor's office, I will check his degree on the wall.

We will note and trace (500/710) the department, and faculty adviser
(500/700$epraeses), if the client wishes, but not include them in 502.  
We only include the degree granting body there.

The instruction says "degree granting institution *or* faculty", not
*and* faculty.  So unless the faculty granted the degree, it does not
go in 502.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] 240 uniform title

[Adam Schiff]

Patricia,

If the combination of author + title is identical to another work then a 240 
would be needed to differentiate this work from others.  Typically only a 
year is used, not year month date.  You only break the conflict when there 
already is one, not when you expect/suspect there will be one.  I'm wonder 
why you don't just catalog it as a serial though, in which case there won't 
be a conflict.  Also, you don't know for sure that Trimble will be the 
creator of each of the quarterly reports.


Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries

-Original Message- 
From: FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC

Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 7:18 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] 240 uniform title

I'm trying to explain the use of a 240 uniform title in a bibliographic 
record clearly to my staff.   I have a tenuous grasp on uniform titles and 
welcome any direction to specific training in depth about the choices of 
MARC tags in different situations.


I understand that the title in question "Nuclear weapons : ‡b factors 
leading to cost increases with the uranium processing facility" 
(OCLC863158972 for those with access) is the first of a predicted quarterly 
report.  Is it disingenuous to ask whether it was appropriate to create this 
240 in the record for the first of the series when RDA LC-PCC PS for 
6.27.1.9 says under General:  "Do not predict a conflict".


My understanding is that one waited until the 2nd report (the conflict) 
appeared in order to make the uniform title in this situation.  Or 
alternatively; create a serial record.


Can someone clarify?
Many thanks.

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

Re: [RDA-L] Habilitation theses

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Ben,

You're right. We'll try and work something out. One idea which has 
already come up is defining an additional element which would express 
the character of a thesis instead of a specific degree.


But isn't it amazing how these cultural differences pop up at the most 
unexpected places. I wasn't even aware that there was a difficulty with 
habilitation theses until a colleague pointed me to it.


Heidrun



Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:

Since "habilitation" is not an Anglo-American institution, I would be surprised indeed if 
RDA discusses it. (Just to confirm--searching the Toolkit for "habilitation" or any of 
its variants returns no hits.) So I think this is an area where the (Continental) European 
cataloging community will have to figure out what it wants to do and make a proposal to the JSC (if 
it is necessary).

It looks like typically it's just recorded in a 500 note that is formatted 
somewhat similar to your standard 502... zB:

#778631115
Ethnizität, Islam, Reformasi : die Evolution der Konfliktlinien im 
Parteiensystem Malaysias / Andreas Ufen.
500 $a The author's Habilitationsschrift--Universität Hamburg, 2010.

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 12:15 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: [RDA-L] Habilitation theses

On a related note:

The other day, we were wondering how habilitation theses should be treated 
under RDA. These are quite common in Germany. In case you're not familiar with 
this European concept:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habilitation

Some universities grant the academic degree of "Dr. habil." to somebody who has 
successfully completed his or her habilitation. But in many cases, there is no special academic 
degree connected with the habilitation. From then on, the successful candidate can call him- or 
herself a "Privatdozent" (private lecturer, PD), while they are waiting for a 
professorship, but this is no academic degree.

According to the German cataloging rules, we only record "Habilitationsschrift" (habilitation thesis), but no specific 
degree - just as for doctoral theses, we only record "Dissertation" (without distinguishing between e.g. "Dr. 
phil." and "Dr. med."). Under RDA, do we now need to find out whether it's a case of "Dr. habil." or 
not? And what about the cases where no special academic degree is granted?

Heidrun


--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi



--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] "Faculty" in 7.9.3.3

[John Hostage]

I think we're looking at this a little too closely.  This element grew out of a 
note in AACR2 practice.  It was never intended to be so precise.  Note that in 
7.9.1.3 it says "the name of the institution or faculty to which the thesis was 
presented (see 7.9.3)" but in 7.9.3 it's "granting institution or faculty."  A 
slight difference, but we're not constructing a database of information about 
theses, so it's not significant for our purposes.  I agree that in most cases 
it is the university that grants the degree, though it may act through its 
faculties or schools.  For cataloging purposes I don't think it's necessary for 
RDA to specify which one or to make a distinction.  Individual cataloging 
agencies or communities could make policies for what information they want to 
record.

As for Habilitationsschriften, they can be accommodated in the present element. 
 You could record "Habilitationsschrift" in 7.9.2.3.  It wouldn't hurt to 
propose a revision to broaden that instruction to include such terms.  I 
wouldn't like to see new specialized elements created.

--
John Hostage 
Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger //
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services //
Langdell Hall 194 //
Cambridge, MA 02138 
host...@law.harvard.edu 
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) 
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)

> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun
> Wiesenmüller
> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 11:39
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] "Faculty" in 7.9.3.3
> 
> John,
> 
> > I think the RDA instruction was probably worded that way to allow freedom
> to record whatever feels most useful and to take into account varying
> amounts of information available.  In most cases it's enough to record the
> university name, but some libraries feel very particular about recording the
> name of the department or faculty for dissertations from their own
> university.
> 
> Yes, I can quite understand that, although I now think this mixes up two
> different things: The corporate body which grants the degree and the faculty
> or department where the thesis was prepared.
> 
> 
> >   I don't think the University College London was meant to represent a
> > faculty,
> 
> I suppose you're right. I just had the expectation that if there are two cases
> in an instruction, and four examples are given, then at least one of them
> would illustrate the second case - and the University College was the only
> one which stuck somewhat out.
> 
> Perhaps the examples group could look out for a suitable example here?
> 
> 
> >   but the Fakultaet fuer Agrarwissenschaften would be an example of a
> faculty.
> 
> It's definitely a faculty, but does it fit the text of the instruction:
> "the granting institution or faculty"?
> 
> I had never thought about this before, but now that I do I think that it's
> always the university which grants the degree, and not the faculty.
> I just checked my own degree certificate and it says (I translate, as not
> everybody's command of German is as good as John's): "The Friedrich
> Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, represented by the Dean of the
> Philosophical Faculty 1, ... , hereby grants the degree of Master of Arts 
> ...". I
> also looked up some federal university laws, which gave me the same
> impression.
> 
> Heidrun
> 
> 
> --
> -
> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
> Stuttgart Media University
> Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] RDA Toolkit Price Change

[Cindy Wolff]

"Really? Has anyone out there in the industry even noticed? What
*might* get noticed is a change in communication formats, but not in
rules."

This is what I have been thinking about for a
while as I read these discussions:
What if we gave a standard and
nobody came, but some other powerful, oblivious standard came for us?

Cindy

Re: [RDA-L] "Faculty" in 7.9.3.3

[Thomas Berger]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1



Am 03.12.2013 17:38, schrieb Heidrun Wiesenmüller:

>>   but the Fakultaet fuer Agrarwissenschaften would be an example of a 
>> faculty.
> 
> It's definitely a faculty, but does it fit the text of the instruction: "the
> granting institution or faculty"?
> 
> I had never thought about this before, but now that I do I think that it's
> always the university which grants the degree, and not the faculty. I just
> checked my own degree certificate and it says (I translate, as not everybody's
> command of German is as good as John's): "The Friedrich Alexander University
> Erlangen-Nuremberg, represented by the Dean of the Philosophical Faculty 1, 
> ...
> , hereby grants the degree of Master of Arts ...". I also looked up some 
> federal
> university laws, which gave me the same impression.

[to the situation in Germany]

Scientific degrees are granted by the university (for medical, judical and
other professions there additionally or alternatively exist state-recognized
exams ("Staatsexamen")).

However the procedure is governed by the Promotionsordnung as part of the
Pruefungsordnung: These regulations are set up by the faculty (Fakultaet or
Fachbereich) and have to be approved by the state ministry specifically
responsible for higher education. And in the many recent cases where
deprivation(?) of the doctoral degree was executed, the faculties were
exercising the formal procedure (notwithstanding parallel investigations with
respect to scientific misconduct performed or directed by the university
itself).

Historically doctorates could only be acquired on (full) universities, and
these are qualified by possessing the full bouquet of faculties (theology,
philosophy, medicine, law and mathematics). Therefore I doubt that even
in former times a single faculty ever was degree-/granting/.

The different faculties of a university might have differences in
reputation, but usually the faculty should be derivable from the
subject. I can imagine cases where precise knowledge of the faculty
would give valuable hints for assessing the work, e.g. when a thesis
with an impressive title soaking of physics was actually presented
to the law faculty...

viele Gruesse
Thomas Berger

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iJwEAQECAAYFAlKeVBkACgkQYhMlmJ6W47OI0gP/bpZhmkuVjNBVUOEJb1dX7ZY1
0VPVJqButAFn/jWxFcFFgVIm43+STSihcMpfroEjI2htX/+1slwuQFVoq7TRlJGq
aj4W/uFwagOGyjiqNl37/qHYl/j0p/N+/EqLFhXEiF+PVJ1EzVuPXzKM1nD+iP9m
QbWb+cpBFEoxck8IGFw=
=I2fx
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator

[Finnerty, Ryan]

Hi Adam,

What if you have an entity that has multiple roles, one at the creator level 
and the other at another level (e.g. author and publisher)?

Would it be acceptable to use relationship designator for both roles in a 1XX, 
like this:
110 2_   Geological Survey (U.S.), $e author, $e publisher.

Or would you have to use a 1XX and 7XX, like this:
110 2_   Geological Survey (U.S.), $e author
710 2_   Geological Survey (U.S.), $e publisher

We've encountered this situation many times.
Thanks for your help!

Ryan J. Finnerty
Head, Database and Authorities Management | NACO Coordinator
UC San Diego Library | Metadata Services
rfinne...@ucsd.edu | (858) 822-3138



-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 12:02 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator

Neither an issuing body nor a host institution is a creator in RDA, so using 
those relationship designators in 110 fields is not correct.  Works are not 
named by combining the authorized access point for issuing body or host 
institution with the preferred title for the work.  To be a 110, the corporate 
body must be a creator.  Choose from the relationship designators for creators 
and if there isn't an appropriate one there (I think "author" is perfectly fine 
and allowable for corporate bodies and families as well as persons), then use 
the element name, in this case "creator".

Adam Schiff

On Fri, 29 Nov 2013, J. McRee Elrod wrote:

> Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 20:23:35 -0800
> From: J. McRee Elrod 
> Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> 
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> 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 (m...@slc.bc.ca)
>  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>  ___} |__ \__
>

^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~

Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator

[M. E.]

Finnerty, Ryan  wrote:

> What if you have an entity that has multiple roles, one at the creator
> level and the other at another level (e.g. author and publisher)?
>
> Would it be acceptable to use relationship designator for both roles in a
> 1XX, like this:
> 110 2_   Geological Survey (U.S.), $e author, $e publisher.
>
> Or would you have to use a 1XX and 7XX, like this:
> 110 2_   Geological Survey (U.S.), $e author
> 710 2_   Geological Survey (U.S.), $e publisher
>

The name access point is usually only given one time, with a chain of
designators attached to it.  So the former is the most common of those you
give above.

See Guideline #10 in the PCC Guidelines on Relationship Designators for a
summary on this for 1xx/7xx $e/$j:
<
http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/PCC%20RDA%20guidelines/Relat-Desig-Guidelines.docx
>


-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator

[Adam L. Schiff]

Ryan,

This is covered in the PCC guidelines on relationship designators 
(http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/PCC%20RDA%20guidelines/Relat-Desig-Guidelines.docx). 
See Guideline 10:


Guideline 10.

If more than one relationship designator is appropriate because the same 
entity has multiple roles, preferably use repeating $e (or $j for MARC X11 
fields).  If necessary, multiple headings may be used instead. Add 
relationship designators in WEMI order.


100 1 Stone, Melicent, $e author, $e illustrator.

Optionally
 100  1  Shore, David A., $e author.
 700  1  Shore, David A., $e former owner. $5 DNLM



On Tue, 3 Dec 2013, Finnerty, Ryan wrote:


Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 22:56:33 +
From: "Finnerty, Ryan" 
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access

To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator

Hi Adam,

What if you have an entity that has multiple roles, one at the creator level 
and the other at another level (e.g. author and publisher)?

Would it be acceptable to use relationship designator for both roles in a 1XX, 
like this:
110 2_   Geological Survey (U.S.), $e author, $e publisher.

Or would you have to use a 1XX and 7XX, like this:
110 2_   Geological Survey (U.S.), $e author
710 2_   Geological Survey (U.S.), $e publisher

We've encountered this situation many times.
Thanks for your help!

Ryan J. Finnerty
Head, Database and Authorities Management | NACO Coordinator
UC San Diego Library | Metadata Services
rfinne...@ucsd.edu | (858) 822-3138



-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 12:02 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator

Neither an issuing body nor a host institution is a creator in RDA, so using those relationship 
designators in 110 fields is not correct.  Works are not named by combining the authorized access 
point for issuing body or host institution with the preferred title for the work.  To be a 110, the 
corporate body must be a creator.  Choose from the relationship designators for creators and if 
there isn't an appropriate one there (I think "author" is perfectly fine and allowable 
for corporate bodies and families as well as persons), then use the element name, in this case 
"creator".

Adam Schiff

On Fri, 29 Nov 2013, J. McRee Elrod wrote:


Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 20:23:35 -0800
From: J. McRee Elrod 
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access

To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
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 (m...@slc.bc.ca)
 {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
 ___} |__ \__



^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~



^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~