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

[Wilson, Pete]

I think "creator" is ugly librarianspeak as a relationship designator.   On the 
other hand, I don't think a corporate body qualifies for most people's idea of 
what an "author" can be.  I have no particularly logical defense of my 
suggestion of "corporate author" as an RD, but my gut tells me it is a 
comfortable concept by which a user can mentally connect a resource to a 
corporate body in the way we want the user to.  I wonder if anyone has proposed 
it yet as an RD?  Maybe I will.

Pete Wilson
Vanderbilt University

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 
USAF AETC AUL/LTSC
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 9:04 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
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.


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



 

To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the 
address you are subscribed under to:
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
In the body of the message:
SIGNOFF RDA-L

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

[Adam Schiff]

Patricia,

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
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
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.


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

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

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

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.


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



 


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

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

[J. McRee Elrod]

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



 

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

[Adam Schiff]

Since "author" is defined in the RDA definition of the designator as 
pertaining to persons, families, and corporate bodies, I would use "author." 
How exactly does having a more specific designator "corporate author" 
provide additional benefits?  It would be possible to make a proposal for a 
new designator "corporate author" but then you'd also need "family author" 
and would need to redefine "author" as only pertaining to persons.  If you 
aren't happy with "author", you could always go one step up and use 
"creator", but 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.


Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries

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

Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 5:52 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator

I'd like to jump off this discussion ever so slightly & ask what
relationship designator one would use for a 110 corporate agency that is
charged with issuing a quarterly report.   I'm still thinking about these
GAO reports in which the report is this agency's findings on a specified
topic; I feel that the 110 is merited over the 710.

We're not happy with |e author either.  We've been using  a staggered |e
author, |e issuing agency [which is how we are finding the records in OCLC].
I am assuming the latter is valid in a 110 if listed after a creator
designation such as "author" or "corporate author"

I've been scanning the MARC code list for relators to see if I can find
something other than author, & am not coming up with anything that makes any
more sense as a creator designation.  Clearly compiler is inappropriate for
this.

|e corporate author makes more sense to me than author & I think it would to
our patrons as well.  I'm debating whether we need to go back & edit any
110s we have with |e issuing agency.   But to what?  Is this a proposal that
needs to go through the fast track process I have read about?

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




-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of John Hostage
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 9:32 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator

I agree that "author" is unsatisfactory as a relationship designator for a
corporate body.  I don't think it meets most users' expectations of what an
author is.
...


When we enter this sort of exhibition catalog under a 110, it seems to me

we are implying that the corporate body has creator status.  For such cases,
shouldn't there be a relationship designator that is explicitly labeled as
creator-compatible?  Even if "issuing body" can (semi?)-legitimately be used
with a 110, it seems to me we'd be better served by a designator specific to
the creator element.

The "sound" of the term "issuing body" itself is not bad.  Of course there
is also "author," which RDA does say can be used for corporate bodies.  But
I'm a little bothered by just "author," especially in the case of a catalog
which combines texts credited to actual human authors with lots of
reproductions.


I wonder whether "corporate author" would be a good relationship designator
for the creator element.  I guess logically it has the same problems as just
plain "author," but it seems better for describing the relationship embodied
in a 110.  When I think of "corporate author" I imagine a somewhat more
multifaceted relationship to the work than that which a personal "author"
has, and its use with a corporate name seems potentially less confusing than
just "author."

This might not be as important if PCC policy weren't to use relationship
designators for all "creators."  A corporate body in a 110 looks like a
creator to me.  If we have to draw a designator from I.2.1, I guess "author"
is the best bet for my purposes at the moment, but it appears more people
than just I aren't very happy with it.

Pete

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

[J. McRee Elrod]

Patricia posted:

>
>We're not happy with |e author either.  We've been using  a staggered |e
>author, |e issuing agency 

I agree with you that "author" seems strange applied to a corporate
body, and will seem strange to our patrons.  I assume you are unhappy
with $eissuing body alone, since it is not a "creator" relationship?

We are told that we may use the category when no exact term fits.  
Unless/until there is an appropriate term, why not:

$ecreator,$eissuing body?

I don't understand the reluctance of include category names in the
appendix lists(s).  One should not have to go to the LC/PCC PS to
discover one may use category names as relationship terms.


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

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

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

I'd like to jump off this discussion ever so slightly & ask what
relationship designator one would use for a 110 corporate agency that is
charged with issuing a quarterly report.   I'm still thinking about these
GAO reports in which the report is this agency's findings on a specified
topic; I feel that the 110 is merited over the 710.   

We're not happy with |e author either.  We've been using  a staggered |e
author, |e issuing agency [which is how we are finding the records in OCLC].
I am assuming the latter is valid in a 110 if listed after a creator
designation such as "author" or "corporate author"

I've been scanning the MARC code list for relators to see if I can find
something other than author, & am not coming up with anything that makes any
more sense as a creator designation.  Clearly compiler is inappropriate for
this.

|e corporate author makes more sense to me than author & I think it would to
our patrons as well.  I'm debating whether we need to go back & edit any
110s we have with |e issuing agency.   But to what?  Is this a proposal that
needs to go through the fast track process I have read about?  

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

  


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of John Hostage
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 9:32 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator

I agree that "author" is unsatisfactory as a relationship designator for a
corporate body.  I don't think it meets most users' expectations of what an
author is.  
...

>>When we enter this sort of exhibition catalog under a 110, it seems to me
we are implying that the corporate body has creator status.  For such cases,
shouldn't there be a relationship designator that is explicitly labeled as
creator-compatible?  Even if "issuing body" can (semi?)-legitimately be used
with a 110, it seems to me we'd be better served by a designator specific to
the creator element.

The "sound" of the term "issuing body" itself is not bad.  Of course there
is also "author," which RDA does say can be used for corporate bodies.  But
I'm a little bothered by just "author," especially in the case of a catalog
which combines texts credited to actual human authors with lots of
reproductions.  


I wonder whether "corporate author" would be a good relationship designator
for the creator element.  I guess logically it has the same problems as just
plain "author," but it seems better for describing the relationship embodied
in a 110.  When I think of "corporate author" I imagine a somewhat more
multifaceted relationship to the work than that which a personal "author"
has, and its use with a corporate name seems potentially less confusing than
just "author."

This might not be as important if PCC policy weren't to use relationship
designators for all "creators."  A corporate body in a 110 looks like a
creator to me.  If we have to draw a designator from I.2.1, I guess "author"
is the best bet for my purposes at the moment, but it appears more people
than just I aren't very happy with it.

Pete



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

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
~~

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

[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

[John Hostage]

I agree that "author" is unsatisfactory as a relationship designator for a 
corporate body.  I don't think it meets most users' expectations of what an 
author is.  Appendix I doesn't have terms to cover all the possibilities in 
chapter 19 or other chapters. Moreover, the scope note for "author" indicates 
it is for works that are primarily textual.  If this catalog consists chiefly 
of art works, "compiler" might be a better term.

If the exhibition had a name, I believe that would go in field 111.  Then the 
museum would go in 710 with $e host institution.

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


From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Wilson, Pete 
[pete.wil...@vanderbilt.edu]
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 01:16
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator

Thanks, Mac.  Sorry, I obviously meant 110, not 100.  And I was not thinking of 
single-artist exhibitions.  Multiple-artist exhibitions often are entered under 
corporate body, in the circumstances I mentioned.")

The designation "issuing body" is not listed in RDA as associated with the 
creator element, is it?  (That is, it's in I.2.2, not I.2.1.)  Is it 
nevertheless appropriate for use in a 110?  My impression is no, and my feeling 
is that even if that's acceptabe, it's unsatisfactory.  Yes, we know there are 
non-creator relationships which nonetheless get "main entry," like "defendant," 
but normally a 1xx field is filled by a creator.  When we enter this sort of 
exhibition catalog under a 110, it seems to me we are implying that the 
corporate body has creator status.  For such cases, shouldn't there be a 
relationship designator that is explicitly labeled as creator-compatible?  Even 
if "issuing body" can (semi?)-legitimately be used with a 110, it seems to me 
we'd be better served by a designator specific to the creator element.

The "sound" of the term "issuing body" itself is not bad.  Of course there is 
also "author," which RDA does say can be used for corporate bodies.  But I'm a 
little bothered by just "author," especially in the case of a catalog which 
combines texts credited to actual human authors with lots of reproductions.  
"Host institution," which is also in I.2.2, seems like a stretch to me.  Its 
definition in the appendix implies that the institution has little to do with 
the creation of the resource, even if they had lots to do with the mounting of 
the exhibition.

I wonder whether "corporate author" would be a good relationship designator for 
the creator element.  I guess logically it has the same problems as just plain 
"author," but it seems better for describing the relationship embodied in a 
110.  When I think of "corporate author" I imagine a somewhat more multifaceted 
relationship to the work than that which a personal "author" has, and its use 
with a corporate name seems potentially less confusing than just "author."

This might not be as important if PCC policy weren't to use relationship 
designators for all "creators."  A corporate body in a 110 looks like a creator 
to me.  If we have to draw a designator from I.2.1, I guess "author" is the 
best bet for my purposes at the moment, but it appears more people than just I 
aren't very happy with it.

Pete
________________
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 10:23 PM
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/
  ___} |__ \__

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

[Adam L. Schiff]

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

[Adam L. Schiff]

The corporate body is the creator of the work.  The relationship designator would either be 
"author" or if you preferred to use the element name (see the PCC guidelines on 
relationship designators), "creator".

Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013, Wilson, Pete wrote:


Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 02:18:20 +
From: "Wilson, Pete" 
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access

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

Here's what I hope is a quick question.  Say you're cataloging an exhibition 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 art involved.  What is the appropriate 
relationship designator for the 100 for the museum?  Is it just "author?"  
Thanks!



Pete Wilson

Vanderbilt University



^^
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

[J. McRee Elrod]

Pete Wilson said:

>This might not be as important if PCC policy weren't to use
>relationship designators for all "creators."

If you don't like any of the more exact terms, your best option would
seem to be to use $ecreator.  It's not in one of the "lists", but
we've been told in the absence of an appropriate term, we can use the
category.

We also lack a good term to use for the gallery or museum as a 710.  
It is impossible to have a finite list provide a term for all possible
relationships.  

Some of us are using $ehost institution, but I would prefer the same
term whether 110 or 710, perhaps $evenue?  That hardly suggested a
creative role however, does it?


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

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

[Wilson, Pete]

Thanks, Mac.  Sorry, I obviously meant 110, not 100.  And I was not thinking of 
single-artist exhibitions.  Multiple-artist exhibitions often are entered under 
corporate body, in the circumstances I mentioned.")

The designation "issuing body" is not listed in RDA as associated with the 
creator element, is it?  (That is, it's in I.2.2, not I.2.1.)  Is it 
nevertheless appropriate for use in a 110?  My impression is no, and my feeling 
is that even if that's acceptabe, it's unsatisfactory.  Yes, we know there are 
non-creator relationships which nonetheless get "main entry," like "defendant," 
but normally a 1xx field is filled by a creator.  When we enter this sort of 
exhibition catalog under a 110, it seems to me we are implying that the 
corporate body has creator status.  For such cases, shouldn't there be a 
relationship designator that is explicitly labeled as creator-compatible?  Even 
if "issuing body" can (semi?)-legitimately be used with a 110, it seems to me 
we'd be better served by a designator specific to the creator element.

The "sound" of the term "issuing body" itself is not bad.  Of course there is 
also "author," which RDA does say can be used for corporate bodies.  But I'm a 
little bothered by just "author," especially in the case of a catalog which 
combines texts credited to actual human authors with lots of reproductions.  
"Host institution," which is also in I.2.2, seems like a stretch to me.  Its 
definition in the appendix implies that the institution has little to do with 
the creation of the resource, even if they had lots to do with the mounting of 
the exhibition.

I wonder whether "corporate author" would be a good relationship designator for 
the creator element.  I guess logically it has the same problems as just plain 
"author," but it seems better for describing the relationship embodied in a 
110.  When I think of "corporate author" I imagine a somewhat more multifaceted 
relationship to the work than that which a personal "author" has, and its use 
with a corporate name seems potentially less confusing than just "author."

This might not be as important if PCC policy weren't to use relationship 
designators for all "creators."  A corporate body in a 110 looks like a creator 
to me.  If we have to draw a designator from I.2.1, I guess "author" is the 
best bet for my purposes at the moment, but it appears more people than just I 
aren't very happy with it.

Pete

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 10:23 PM
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/
  ___} |__ \__

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

[J. McRee Elrod]

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/
  ___} |__ \__