Colleagues, 

If the glossary definition of "Issuing body" somehow precludes 
using it as the designator for the role of a conference or meeting 
with regard to its program or proceedings, the problem is quite 
evidently with the restrictive definition. 

I see no purpose in floundering about for a less satisfactory term 
to use for the relationship between a corporate entity and publications 
that we would have described as "emanating," under AACR2. 


Christopher H. Walker 
Serials Cataloging Librarian 
Penn State's representative to the CONSER Operations Committee
Member at Large, ALCTS CRS Executive Committee 2013/2016 
126 Paterno Library 
The Pennsylvania State University 
University Park, PA 16802-1812 
(814) 865-4212 
[log in to unmask]
 
 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kristin Lindlan" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, August 9, 2013 1:22:13 PM
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] relationship designator for conference

What about "convening body"? Doesn't quite Don't think it quite gets it 
either, Kristin Lindlan

On Fri, 9 Aug 2013, Layne, Sara wrote:

> 
> Yes, but ... I don't think 'compiler' captures what is really most important
> about the relationship of the conference to these works/expressions, which
> is that the conference is responsible for initiating the *creation* of the
> data that is then being compiled.
> 
>  
> 
> Sara Shatford Layne
> 
> ____________________________________________________________________________
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [[log in to unmask]] on
> behalf of Stephen Hearn [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 9:18 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] relationship designator for conference
> 
> "Compiler" is defined in Appendix I.2.1 as "A person, family, or corporate
> body responsible for creating a new work (e.g., a bibliography, a directory)
> by selecting, arranging, aggregating, and editing data, information, etc.
> For a compiler as a contributor, see editor of compilation." 
> If the conference event itself and the published proceedings and a video
> record of the event are all considered expressions of the content which the
> conference created as a work, it's not too much of a stretch to consider the
> conference as selecting, arranging, and aggregating the work's content. The
> person who whips the proceedings into shape for publication would be "editor
> of compilation" leaving credit for compiling the work to the conference
> itself.
> 
> Stephen
> 
> 
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Melanie Shaw <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>       "Compiler of proceedings" would not work well with other
>       publications authored by conferences, such as official programs,
>       and abstracts of sessions, to name just a few I've had to deal
>       with recently.
> 
> Melanie Shaw
> Cataloger
> Utah State University
> Merrill-Cazier Library
> Logan, Utah 84322
> melanie.shaw
> 
> 
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Layne, Sara <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>       Interesting suggestion, but ... "Compiler of proceedings"
>       sounds (to me) like a description of an editor who
>       assembled  the papers from the conference into a
>       publication, not a description of the corporate entity
>       (the conference) that caused the papers to be generated in
>       the first place.
>
>       Sara Shatford Layne
>       Recently Retired from the UCLA Library
>
>       ________________________________________
>       From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
>       [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Tarango, Adolfo
>       [[log in to unmask]]
>       Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 7:28 AM
>       To: [log in to unmask]
>       Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] relationship designator for
>       conference
>
>       Compiler of proceedings.
>
>       Adolfo
>
>       -----Original Message-----
>       From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
>       [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L.
>       Schiff
>       Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 12:33 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
>       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
> Technical Services, University Libraries
> University of Minnesota
> 160 Wilson Library
> 309 19th Avenue South
> Minneapolis, MN 55455
> Ph: 612-625-2328
> Fx: 612-625-3428
> 
>