Are there any places that relationship designators are mandatory? I thought in general, the designators themselves, weren't core (although seems they would be necessary in linking relationships...step backwards there). Apologies if I've missed something here. --Steve
Steve Shadle/Serials Access Librarian [log in to unmask]
Box 352900 - University of Washington Libraries
Seattle, WA 98195-2900 Phone: (206) 685-3983
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013, Balster, Kevin wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
>
>
> I¢m hoping to get some opinions as to how RDA relationship designators should be handled within the revised CCM. While module 4 will now need to incorporate relationship designators in order align itself with
> current PCC practice, I don¢t believe that it would be the best place to give guidance on how to select appropriate relationship designators. Other modules, such as module 14 on linking relationships, would also
> need to incorporate relationship designators (albeit different designators), and by providing guidance within the modules we would be conflating the topics.
>
>
>
> I¢ve given this a little thought and come up with a possible way of handling this situation. Within the modules, we could provide instructions on when including relationship designators are mandatory or
> voluntary, and where in RDA to look for an appropriate relationship designator if there are a variety to choose from. We could then add a new appendix with instructions on how to select relationship designators,
> and simply point to the appendix from the relevant modules.
>
>
>
> Please let me know what you think,
>
>
>
> -Kevin
>
>
>
> Kevin Balster
>
> ERM/Continuing Resources Metadata Librarian
>
> UCLA Cataloging & Metadata Center
>
> (310)825-1936
>
>
>
>
>
|