First, I'm assuming that the exhibit catalog and the body of photographs are being regarded as separate works. Otherwise Berengo-Gardin would be the main entry and  "Photographs. Selections" would be a 240.

That being the case, I'm not sure that Berengo-Gardin has a "photographer" relationship to the exhibit catalog per se. He took the photographs in the exhibit, but presumably not photographs of the exhibit or of contributors to the text which might appear in the catalog.  If reproductions of his photos are a component of the catalog, then the analytic work 700 can represent that; and eventually, his relationship as photographer to the body of photographs could be expressed in a separate description of the work named by "Berengo-Gardin, ... Photographs. Selections."

On the other hand, if the exhibit catalog is regarded as an expression of which the primary content is the photographs, one could argue that Berengo-Gardin should be the main entry. In that case, through the magic of MARC, which sees the 100 field as both a relationship statement and a component of the authorized access point for the work, the $e could be included with the 100 but omitted in the authorized access point derived from the 100/240 combination.

To me, the need to repeat a name in access points arises when the roles differ. If Berengo-Gardin contributed an introduction to the exhibit catalog, then one would need a separate 700 where he could be identified as "writer of introduction" per RDA Appendix I.3.1 in addition to the 700 12 Berengo-Gardin, ... Photographs. Selections.

I noted that LC has revised its bib record to drop the $e from the 700.

Stephen



On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Wilson, Pete <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Yes, 18.5 speaks of the “resource,” not the “work,” so a relationship designator applied on the basis of that rule in a name access point shows the relationship of the name to the resource, not the work embodied in it (or the work that is one of several embodied in the resource).  It seems to me a stretch to include a relationship designator in a name-title AAP for a work in order to show the name’s relationship to the work.

 

Stephen, how do you feel about John Wright’s suggestion to make two different access points, one for the work (without $e) and one for the contributor to the resource (with $e)?

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 9:08 AM


To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] 700 name/title work entries that include relationship designators

 

RDA 6.2.2.10.2 gives us leeway to select "an appropriate specific collective title." If the assembled Berengo-Gardin works are all photographs, then using "$t Photographs. $k Selections" seems specific and appropriate. 

 

I could see including the $e in a relationship statement to express the relationship between Berengo-Gardin and the work per RDA 18.5; but that's different. The name that appears in the authorized access point is just that--part of the work's access point, and not generally the preferred place to express the relationship.

 

Though there appear to be exceptions. The MARC21 Authority Format includes "$e defendant" in the name/title access point for a court case as an example of using $e (cf. Names and Terms--General Information/X00, $e).

 

Stephen

 

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Wilson, Pete <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Honestly I don’t know—I am still a little boggled by the new “works/selections” approach to art.  I gather you are agreeing that the relationship designators should not be included in the work authorized access point, though?

 

Pete Wilson

Vanderbilt University

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 5:33 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] 700 name/title work entries that include relationship designators

 

Is "700:12: Berengo-Gardin, Gianni. $t Photographs. $k Selections." an option?

 

Stephen

 

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:07 PM, John Wright <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Yes, it seems that an error was made and this would best be presented as two separate 700 fields as follows:

 

700:1 : Berengo-Gardin, Gianni, $e photographer.

 

700:12: Berengo-Gardin, Gianni. $t Works. $k Selections.

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wilson, Pete
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 3:29 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: 700 name/title work entries that include relationship designators

 

I’m curious about what seems a strange combination of name-title work AAP and relationship designators.

 

This is from LC’s record 2013-361481:

 

700:12: Berengo-Gardin, Gianni, $e photographer. $t Works. $k Selections.

 

Is the use of the relationship designator appropriate here?  It looks funny to me.

 

Philosophically it seems that we are using this field awkwardly for two purposes.  The relationship designator expresses the relationship of Berengo-Gardin to the manifestation.  The field as a whole, minus the relationship designator, records a work contained in the manifestation. 

 

Would it be better to use two separate fields?  Or is the relationship designator simply unnecessary?

 

In this case, by the way, the book is entered under title.  It is an exhibition catalog.  The only other 7xx field is for the “editor of compilation.”

 

Would love to hear what you think.  Thanks!

 

Pete Wilson

Vanderbilt University



 

--

Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist

Technical Services, University Libraries

University of Minnesota

160 Wilson Library

309 19th Avenue South

Minneapolis, MN 55455



 

--

Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist

Technical Services, University Libraries

University of Minnesota

160 Wilson Library

309 19th Avenue South

Minneapolis, MN 55455




--
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