My personal opinion: *any* designator for conferences will be contrived and awkward as there is no expression in common usage (or even in uncommon usage) for the relationship between a conference and its proceedings. That said, if it is unacceptable to omit the designator altogether for conferences, what about proposing the term "originating body"? Which is sort of a variation on "creator"? Or, as Adam suggests, use "creator", which, while a bit odd when used with a conference name, is at least short and currently authorized.

Sara Shatford Layne
Recently Retired from the UCLA Library

________________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Adam L. Schiff [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 12:32 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] relationship designator for conference

Some people are using "author" for conferences, but I agree that's not ideal.  The PCC Guidelines allow us to use the element name, so one could use "creator".  If we were to create a new designator specifically for conferences, what would you call it?

Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries

On Thu, 8 Aug 2013, Kevin M Randall wrote:

> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 17:11:54 +0000
> From: Kevin M Randall <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: relationship designator for conference
>
> RDA 19.2.1.1.1 says that a conference is considered to be the creator of a work that reports the collective activity of that conference.  RDA 6.27.1.2 then says that the name of the conference is used as the first part of the authorized access point.  Thus the name of the conference would go into MARC field 110/111.  As for relationship designators, they would have to come from RDA I.2.1, and currently there are no terms in that list that are appropriate.  It would be best to omit a relationship designator instead of applying one that is incorrect.  (Note that "sponsoring body" and "issuing body" are in RDA I.2.2, and are not appropriate for use with creators.)  I'm not sure if anyone has proposed a new relationship designator for conferences considered to be creators, but I think it would be a good idea!
>
> Kevin M. Randall
> Principal Serials Cataloger
> Northwestern University Library
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> (847) 491-2939
>
> Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
>
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rebecca Uhl
> Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 11:46 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [PCCLIST] relationship designator for conference
>
> According to the PCC guidelines for relationship designators, we are supposed to be adding a relationship designator to access points for  creators, and are strongly encouraged to do so for all access points.  But what about conferences?  None of the examples in the guidelines are for conferences, just people.  Are conferences "creators"?
>
> We haven't seen many relationship designators for conferences at all, whether they are in a 111 or 711.  In an OCLC search of recent (2012-2013) RDA records with conference headings, I found NLM is consistently using the relationship designator, but LC and other PCC libraries are (apparently) not doing so.  Some of these records were created in July 2013, after the guidelines were released, so should we use them for conferences or not?  If we do, what do we call them?  Author? Sponsoring body? Issuing body?
>
> Your insights will be greatly appreciated!
>
> Becky
>

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
[log in to unmask]
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~