Thanks, again, Bob.
I am totally on the same page with you (excuse the pun).
--
Matthew Wise
Music Cataloger and Cataloging Policy, Documentation, and Training Librarian
Knowledge Access and Resource Management Services (KARMS)
Division of Libraries, New York University
20 Cooper Square, Room
I have this situation: There is a personal author NAR that I would like recode
as RDA. There is also an AACR2 uniform title NAR for this author with $l
Serbian Macedonian. How do I convert the uniform title NAR to an RDA
preferred title NAR? Do I need to create a 2nd NAR for one of the
Hi,
I found the following illustrative matter examples in AACR2 and OCLC
Bibliographic Formats and Standards.
- chiefly maps
- ill. (chiefly col.)
- ill. (some col.)
- some ill. (some col.)
- ill., ports. (some col.)
Based on these examples, “*chiefly maps*” means that the
If we are cataloging a work, with a preface by someone other than the main
author, RDA 20.2.1 says this is a relationship between a person and an
expression.
The examples in RDA 20 list this as Writer of Added Commentary, Etc. In
Appendix I.3, Relationship Designators for Persons, Families,
Hi,
These are general guidelines for using relationship designators.
General Guidelines on Using Relationship Designators
- Use relationship designators to indicate the specific nature of
relationships between a resource and persons, families, and corporate
bodies associated with that
Joan,
Yes this is basically what I understand to be correct. However, there
does NOT seem to be a way in RDA to say chiefly illustrations, so I
think that would have to be conveyed in a note. I covered this in my
presentation on the changes from RDA:
Slide 76 at
The LC-PCC Policy Statement for K.1 says Use only terms from Appendix K
if supplying relationship designators in the shared LC/NACO Authority
File. Do not supply terms beyond those found in this Appendix.
But there is no similar restriction in the LC-PCC PS for J.1 or I.1, so it
would appear
Thanks for the replies and suggestions.
--Ben
Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
Adam, thanks a lot.
Joan
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Adam L. Schiff
asch...@u.washington.eduwrote:
Joan,
Yes this is basically what I understand to be correct. However, there
does NOT seem to be a way in RDA to say chiefly illustrations, so I think
that would have to be conveyed in
The terms in the MARC relator list may also be used if the terms in RDA
Appendix J are not appropriate or sufficiently specific:
http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html
Bob
Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
Some observations...
There are some twists and turns in how RDA handles illustrative content and
colour content differently from MARC through its newly created elements
Illustrative Content and Colour Content.
For the RDA element Colour Content the values could be the ones once found in
The principal drawback I see to using ad-hoc terms is that they necessarily
fall outside any structure relating terms in a hierarchical manner. writer of
preface will be identified as a specific kind of contributor because of its
presence in a 7XX field, but intermediate relationships, such
Ed,
For me the question is--is it better to use an existing term that doesn't quite
fit (like writer of added commentary) or to supply an ad hoc term?
Frankly I am somewhat surprised that in Appendix I, under Relationship
designators for contributors, there's no simple term, Contributor. That
Benjamin,
The RDA element 20.2 is named Contributor, which is why there is no
designator. It wouldn't be needed in RDA because the element itself is
contributor. You wouldn't need to encode this in a designator, because it
would be redundant:
Contributor: Maxwell, Robert, contributor.
I don't think I agree with this as an argument for not including high level
general terms in the relationship terms available for use. We do need creator
and contributor. I don't think it's a matter of it being redundant in MARC.
In E/R or presumably in linked data you'd just have a person
Some rather basic questions I'm still ignorant of. Is it allowable to have some
access points with the relationship designator and some without any
relationship designator? And are the terms of creator and author mutually
exclusive.
Thanks,
Jack
Jack Wu
Franciscan University of
Here's a simple chart:
MARC has two main fields for making an access point for a Person:
100
700
Specific relationship designators can be added in subfield $e.
But in RDA, there are two layers. There is a top level relationship element
connected to a work, expression, manifestation, or
This I understand.
But it strikes me as a strange decision that you can't simply use the top level
relationship descriptor.
It's like saying:
GREEN
--avocado
--kelly
--lime
--malachite
But if you have something else that's not on the list--say, olive--you can't
just pick GREEN. Which (it
But is the subfield e relationship designator mandatory or optional, for
the 1xx field, for the 7xx field?
Jack
Jack Wu
Franciscan University of Steubenville
Brenndorfer, Thomas tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca
10/16/2012 4:27 PM
Here’s a simple chart:
MARC has two main fields for
The designator codes are not mandatory across the board, but certain values are
considered core values under certain institutional policies for certain
resources. So for example, “$e illustrator” is a Contributor relationship
designator value that is a core element (i.e., mandatory) for the
Ben
I would strongly support using a term from the MARC list (e.g., author of
introduction, etc. [aui]). It's reasonable to expect that in a future linked
data environment, the RDA appendix I terms and the MARC relator terms/codes
would be associated in a machine-actionable way.
Ed
---Apologies for cross-posting---
The University of Miami Libraries seeks a Special Collections Cataloger to
provide original and complex copy cataloging, retrospective conversion, and
authority work for materials in the library's Special Collections Division and
the Cuban Heritage Collection,
Subfield $e is listed as Optional in the MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data
National Level Full and Minimal Requirements list
(http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/nlr/nlr1xx.html)
RDA does not specify that the Relationship Designator element is ‘Core’ in the
actual instructions, but if
Bob,
I agree with you that we *should* be able to add 'creator' as a relationship
designator, but RDA explicitly says:
Under (18.5.1.3 http://access.rdatoolkit.org/18.5.1.3.html ):
If the element used to record the relationship (e.g., creator) is
considered sufficient for the purposes of the
Robert Maxwell said:
I don't think I agree with this as an argument for not including high
level general terms in the relationship terms available ...
SLC agrees with Robert.
It i still on open question whether SLC will use relationship
designators; only one client so far has said they want
The guideline says if the element is considered sufficient for the purposes
of *the agency creating the data*, meaning it's a local decision. Some
agencies might consider the 100 field sufficient and never record anything at
all as a relationship designator in that field. Others might not. I
26 matches
Mail list logo
