The list that I was working from was not coded in MARC. The 'names' were
not the abbreviated names that would be in $e, but were the 'terms'
listed in the LC relator list beside each of the codes.
kc
On 5/29/13 3:19 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> Karen said:
>
>> Most of these "bad" names are close variations on the LC list,
>> missing ", etc.".
>
> By "names" do you mean relationship terms in $e? Or do you mean the
> name of the person, family, or corporate body in $a? The context
> would seem to suggest you mean relationship terms. Wouldn't be be
> less confusing to call them that?
>
> I do like talking in unambiguous MARC field and subfield codes! The
> ambiguity of language, and reuse of terms with new meanings, creates
> roblems.
>
>
> __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
> ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
|