J. McRee Elrod <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Mark said:
>>There is no such designator in RDA.  It's "composer (expression)," which I
>>believe you export to your clients as simply "composer".
> It is in the registry:
> It is also in the version of RDA to which I have access at
> "For Example:
>    film producer
>    film director
>    actor
>    composer of music for sound film"
> Perhaps you looked in the wrong list?

No, I looked in the correct list--the current version of RDA's
Appendix I.  The "composer of music for sound film" designation
appeared in the November 2008 draft of RDA, but it was wiped out with
a number of other terms to form the current Appendix I list first
pushed out with the initial June 2010 publication of RDA.  The
examples in Chapter 18 were revised too.

I see that term is still classed as "new-proposed" at the Metadata
Registry.  Don't know if that means anything in this context.

> One list in alphabetic order
> would be much easier, perhaps coded for use with one or more of WEMI?

I've already made a single alphabetical list with WEMI labels, to use
as a cheat-sheet.

>>If the intent is to use URIs to describe relationships currently depicted
>>by our current use of MARC relator codes ...
> The URIs lead to terms in English.  The $4 MARC codes can be exported
> in any language.

The RDA relationship designators and other controlled terms are also
"codes."  They're given as English words in the text, but can be
represented using URIs that can point to multiple language labels for
the same concept.  For instance, a number of the RDA terms at the
Metadata Registry are available in both English and German, e.g.,
<>.   Though
pointing at the same thing via a URI, an English catalog can be set up
to display the English label, and the German catalog set up to display
the German label.  Or perhaps even set up to prefer certain words over
others in a particular language.

To your point about, maybe LC and/or another group can work
to develop sanctioned translation-synonyms for the MARC relator and
other codes.

> So much of RDA and Bibframe is Anglocentric.

Can't speak to the BIBFRAME since the coding part hasn't come up yet
aside from references to or examples in RDF/XML and Turtle.

But RDA?  Yes, it is Anglocentric, certainly with regard to its
vocabularies--it's directed at an English-speaking audience.  Will
those vocabularies still be Anglocentric when RDA gets translated into
Spanish?  And German?  And French?

Furthermore, will the RDA term "maps" *mean* the same thing with each
language?  Likely.  Will that term be *represented* in the same way in
each translation and in their respective bib records and catalogs?
Likely no.  English "maps" = German "Karten" = French "cartes".  Using
potentially the same URI.  But we're still a long way from making this
happen in a typical library catalog.

> I wonder if our Quebec,
> European, and Asian clients would accept Bibframe XML markup in
> English?

Are they reading the mark-up?  Or is the computer reading the mark-up
and presenting it in a familiar form on the screen?  Compare reading
"raw" MARC to reading formatted MARC.  Or reading HTML code versus
viewing the content of a web page.

If it's an issue, XML isn't limited to tags containing roman
characters.  Not sure about Turtle or other methods of markup.

> They would certainaly not accept English inclusions in
> records for non English resources.

Understandable.  It interferes with the parts of the record that
should be read by the public--the spelled out bits.  But do they balk
at the quasi-English MARC codes "lat" and "ger" and "fre" and "eng",
for instance?

Mark K. Ehlert                 Minitex
Coordinator                    University of Minnesota
Digitization, Cataloging &     15 Andersen Library
  Metadata Education (DCME)    222 21st Avenue South
Phone: 612-624-0805            Minneapolis, MN 55455-0439