Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Maybe teacher and student would work..
...Or somebody's first cousin.
John
-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: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 8:32 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
That would be a naughty designator rather than an inappropriate one!
It's way before Friday for humor, isn't it? ;0)
On Tue, 29 Oct 2013, Kevin M Randall wrote:
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 20:29:48 +
From: Kevin M Randall k...@northwestern.edu
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Like one that would be used for a particular work by Nathaniel Hawthorne, I
suppose?
Kevin
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Wagstaff, D
John
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:23 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Can anyone point me to an inappropriate relationship designator?
That sounds a lot more fun...
(Sorry, but I couldn't resist.)
John
John Wagstaff
Head, Music Performing Arts Library University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign
1114 W. Nevada Street
Urbana IL61801
Tel. 217-244-4070
e-mail: wagst...@illinois.edu
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee
Elrod
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:20 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Lynne asked:
In this case, do I simply add the corporate name heading (access
point) without any relationship designator even though the Natural
History Museum holds the copyright ...
Kevin advises no relationship designator if none applies, Another
poster has advised that if no exact term works, use the larger
category. even if not the the lists. (The MRIs add those categories
to its list.) In this case you might consider $ecreator. The body
has a more important relationship to the item than just holding the
copyright.
You are right, I think, that the terms from the $4 code list should
not be used in $e. You could use the $4 code, but as I said, the
relationship is larger and more important than just copyright holder, so I
would not.
__ __ 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] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Lynnne LaBare said:
I have the MARC Code List for Relators and Mac's Special Libraries
Cataloging list from an email dated 8/29/2103.
You might wish to print it out again from the MRIs our website. Based
on Mark's helpful post, I added more terms Tuesday:
http://special-cataloguing.com/mris/21
You need to sign up for a free account.
For any who have difficulty, I'll post the list again.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Thank you, Mac. I know many of us
appreciate what you are doing to make RDA "cataloger friendly."
Lynne
J. LaBare
Senior
Librarian,
Cataloger
Provo Library
at Academy
Square
550 North
University
Avenue Provo,
Utah
84601-1618
801.852.7672
801.852.6670
(fax)
Email: lyn...@provo.lib.ut.us
On 10/31/2013 12:24 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Lynnne LaBare said:
I have the "MARC Code List for Relators" and Mac's Special Libraries
Cataloging list from an email dated 8/29/2103.
You might wish to print it out again from the MRIs our website. Based
on Mark's helpful post, I added more terms Tuesday:
http://special-cataloguing.com/mris/21
You need to sign up for a free account.
For any who have difficulty, I'll post the list again.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
attachment: lynnel.vcf
Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Lynne LaBare asked
:
245 10 |a Natural History Museum book of animal records : ?b thousands
of amazing facts and unbelievable feats / |c Mark Carwardine.
710 2 |a Natural History Museum (London, England), |e issuing body (?)
Yes, if the Museum is 264 1 $b.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
J. McRee Elrod wrote: Yes, if the Museum is 264 1 $b. The 264 field appears as: 264 1 |a Buffalo, N.Y. :|b Firefly Books, |c 2013. In this case, do I simply add the corporate name heading (access point) without any relationship designator even though the Natural History Museum holds the copyright and appears in the title? I found the term "copyright holder" [cph] in the MARC Code List for Relators (http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html) , but am I correct in my understanding that we should avoid using these terms in RDA bib records if possible? Lynne J. LaBare Senior Librarian, Cataloger Provo Library at Academy Square 550 North University Avenue Provo, Utah 84601-1618 801.852.7672 801.852.6670 (fax) Email: lyn...@provo.lib.ut.us attachment: lynnel.vcf
Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
It seems that copyright holder is a legal relationship with very little bibliographic significance. Moreover, it's a relationship that is potentially volatile and has the possibility of being out of date soon after the statement's appearance. The relationship between the resource and the museum as described within the content of the resource itself is what is of bibliographic significance. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edumailto:k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Lynne LaBare, Senior Librarian/Cataloger Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 2:08 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator J. McRee Elrod wrote: Yes, if the Museum is 264 1 $b. The 264 field appears as: 264 1 |a Buffalo, N.Y. :|b Firefly Books, |c 2013. In this case, do I simply add the corporate name heading (access point) without any relationship designator even though the Natural History Museum holds the copyright and appears in the title? I found the term copyright holder [cph] in the MARC Code List for Relators (http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html) , but am I correct in my understanding that we should avoid using these terms in RDA bib records if possible? Lynne J. LaBare Senior Librarian, Cataloger Provo Library at Academy Square 550 North University Avenue Provo, Utah 84601-1618 801.852.7672 801.852.6670 (fax) Email: lyn...@provo.lib.ut.usmailto:lyn...@provo.lib.ut.us [Description: library logo color white backgroundSMALL] inline: image001.jpg
Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Has anyone mentioned the 542 field? Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc. Twitter: GaryLStrawn Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300 e-mail: mrsm...@northwestern.edu voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306 Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2007.25.428 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 2:22 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator It seems that copyright holder is a legal relationship with very little bibliographic significance. Moreover, it's a relationship that is potentially volatile and has the possibility of being out of date soon after the statement's appearance. The relationship between the resource and the museum as described within the content of the resource itself is what is of bibliographic significance. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edumailto:k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Lynne LaBare, Senior Librarian/Cataloger Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 2:08 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator J. McRee Elrod wrote: Yes, if the Museum is 264 1 $b. The 264 field appears as: 264 1 |a Buffalo, N.Y. :|b Firefly Books, |c 2013. In this case, do I simply add the corporate name heading (access point) without any relationship designator even though the Natural History Museum holds the copyright and appears in the title? I found the term copyright holder [cph] in the MARC Code List for Relators (http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html) , but am I correct in my understanding that we should avoid using these terms in RDA bib records if possible? Lynne J. LaBare Senior Librarian, Cataloger Provo Library at Academy Square 550 North University Avenue Provo, Utah 84601-1618 801.852.7672 801.852.6670 (fax) Email: lyn...@provo.lib.ut.usmailto:lyn...@provo.lib.ut.us [Description: library logo color white backgroundSMALL] inline: image001.jpg
Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Lynne asked:
In this case, do I simply add the corporate name heading (access point)
without any relationship designator even though the Natural History
Museum holds the copyright ...
Kevin advises no relationship designator if none applies, Another
poster has advised that if no exact term works, use the larger
category. even if not the the lists. (The MRIs add those categories
to its list.) In this case you might consider $ecreator. The body
has a more important relationship to the item than just holding the
copyright.
You are right, I think, that the terms from the $4 code list should
not be used in $e. You could use the $4 code, but as I said, the
relationship is larger and more important than just copyright holder,
so I would not.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Can anyone point me to an inappropriate relationship designator? That sounds
a lot more fun...
(Sorry, but I couldn't resist.)
John
John Wagstaff
Head, Music Performing Arts Library
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
1114 W. Nevada Street
Urbana IL61801
Tel. 217-244-4070
e-mail: wagst...@illinois.edu
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:20 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Lynne asked:
In this case, do I simply add the corporate name heading (access point)
without any relationship designator even though the Natural History
Museum holds the copyright ...
Kevin advises no relationship designator if none applies, Another poster has
advised that if no exact term works, use the larger category. even if not the
the lists. (The MRIs add those categories to its list.) In this case you
might consider $ecreator. The body has a more important relationship to the
item than just holding the copyright.
You are right, I think, that the terms from the $4 code list should not be used
in $e. You could use the $4 code, but as I said, the relationship is larger
and more important than just copyright holder, so I would not.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Lynne LaBare, Senior Librarian/Cataloger lyn...@provolibrary.com wrote: Is it correct to state that I can use contributor (20.2.1.3) or creator (I.2.1) when a *specific* MRI for an entity does not exist that reflects the entity's relationship to the bibliographical content of the work? If you choose not to search for a specific designator on another list (e.g., MARC relator code terms or LCSH or AAT or ...) or make up another designator out of thin air (a last resort, in my view), then, yes, you may use those broader RDA element names. The PCC advise as much for their institutions; see Guideline #4 in http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/PCC%20RDA%20guidelines/Relat-Desig-Guidelines.docx . 100 1- Name, $e creator. 700 1- Name, $e contributor. 710 2- Company name, $e publisher. 710 2- Name, $e custodian. Here's a list of those RDA element names for those who don't have access to the cataloging manual. I've added their location via RDA rule numbers. These element names are define in RDA's glossary as well as at the RDA location assigned. 1. Name-Work Relationship (RDA 19) o creator (RDA 19.2) - - more specific designators under Appendix I.2.1 o other person, family, or corporate body associated with a work (RDA 19.3) - - [our local designator: other (work)] - - more specific designators under Appendix I.2.2 2. Name-Expression Relationship (RDA 20) o contributor (RDA 20.2) - - more specific designators under Appendix I.3.1 3. Name-Manifestation Relationship (RDA 21) o producer of an unpublished resource (RDA 21.2) - - [our local designator: producer (manifestation)] o publisher (RDA 21.3) - - more specific designators under Appendix I.4.2 o distributor (RDA 21.4) - - more specific designators under Appendix I.4.3 o manufacturer (RDA 21.5) - - more specific designators under Appendix I.4.1 o other person, family, or corporate body associated with a manifestation (RDA 21.6) - - [our local designator: other (manifestation)] 4. Name-Item Relationship (RDA 22) o owner (RDA 22.2) - - more specific designators under Appendix I.5.1 o custodian (RDA 22.3) o other person, family, or corporate body associated with an item (RDA 22.4) - - [our local designator: other (item)] - - more specific designators under Appendix I.5.2 -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Lynne, If there isn't a good match, just don't record a relationship designator. Or if you can determine that a new designator is needed and what that would be, submit one for the JSC to consider (via the web form on the PCC website if you are a PCC library, or to the Cataloging Committee: Description and Access (CC:DA) of ALA). But in either case, don't agonize over this and spend an inordinate amount of time. Adam Schiff On Tue, 29 Oct 2013, Lynne LaBare, Senior Librarian/Cataloger wrote: Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:12:19 -0600 From: Lynne LaBare, Senior Librarian/Cataloger lyn...@provolibrary.com To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator Colleagues, Would you please inform me what the appropriate relationship designator would be for the following based on the 245 field below? 245 10 |a Natural History Museum book of animal records : ?b thousands of amazing facts and unbelievable feats / |c Mark Carwardine. The Natural History Museum holds the copyright. I have reviewed Sections 6.18-19 and Appendix I in the RDA Toolkit for good examples and may be overlooking a perfect match. 710 2 |a Natural History Museum (London, England), |e issuing body (?) Thank you. *Lynne J. LaBare Senior Librarian, Cataloger Provo Library at Academy Square 550 North University Avenue Provo, Utah 84601-1618 801.852.7672 801.852.6670 (fax) Email: lyn...@provo.lib.ut.us mailto:lyn...@provo.lib.ut.us Description: library logo color white backgroundSMALL * ^^ 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 ~~attachment: lynnel.vcf
Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
If there is no appropriate term in RDA, you certainly may use a controlled term from another list. The problem in MARC is that we cannot specify what controlled list these terms come from. Adam Schiff On Tue, 29 Oct 2013, Lynne LaBare, Senior Librarian/Cataloger wrote: Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:07:47 -0600 From: Lynne LaBare, Senior Librarian/Cataloger lyn...@provolibrary.com To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator J. McRee Elrod wrote: Yes, if the Museum is 264 1 $b. The 264 field appears as: 264 1 |a Buffalo, N.Y. :|b Firefly Books, |c 2013. In this case, do I simply add the corporate name heading (access point) without any relationship designator even though the Natural History Museum holds the copyright and appears in the title? I found the term copyright holder [cph] in the MARC Code List for Relators (http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html) , but am I correct in my understanding that we should avoid using these terms in RDA bib records if possible? *Lynne J. LaBare Senior Librarian, Cataloger Provo Library at Academy Square 550 North University Avenue Provo, Utah 84601-1618 801.852.7672 801.852.6670 (fax) Email: lyn...@provo.lib.ut.us mailto:lyn...@provo.lib.ut.us Description: library logo color white backgroundSMALL* ^^ 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 ~~attachment: lynnel.vcf
Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
That would be a naughty designator rather than an inappropriate one!
It's way before Friday for humor, isn't it? ;0)
On Tue, 29 Oct 2013, Kevin M Randall wrote:
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 20:29:48 +
From: Kevin M Randall k...@northwestern.edu
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Like one that would be used for a particular work by Nathaniel Hawthorne, I
suppose?
Kevin
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Wagstaff, D John
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:23 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Can anyone point me to an inappropriate relationship designator? That
sounds a lot more fun...
(Sorry, but I couldn't resist.)
John
John Wagstaff
Head, Music Performing Arts Library
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
1114 W. Nevada Street
Urbana IL61801
Tel. 217-244-4070
e-mail: wagst...@illinois.edu
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:20 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Lynne asked:
In this case, do I simply add the corporate name heading (access point)
without any relationship designator even though the Natural History
Museum holds the copyright ...
Kevin advises no relationship designator if none applies, Another poster
has advised that if no exact term works, use the larger category. even if
not the the lists. (The MRIs add those categories to its list.) In this case
you might consider $ecreator. The body has a more important
relationship to the item than just holding the copyright.
You are right, I think, that the terms from the $4 code list should not be
used in $e. You could use the $4 code, but as I said, the relationship is
larger and more important than just copyright holder, so I would not.
__ __ 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
~~
