Print

Print


And yet, the LC training materials say it is a matter of judgment, and I have seen MANY LC records without it.

A small sample of LCCNs (gathered by simply looking at books with 2014 imprint dates)

2012474509
2014006606
 2013010295
  2014005716
2013951895
  2013026133

The reason that we are not adding relationship designators here at Duke is that we are using the most basic form of RDA, as defined by the BIBCO Standard Record (BSR).   I was relieved that relationship designators are not required in the BSR, because they are aimed at some unknown future involving (I think) RDF triples.   If/when such a future arrives, we'll have to deal with legacy records lacking the relationship designators.   If  there will be some automated mechanism which can deal with RDA and pre-RDA records, the task will never be done.  The point has been made on other threads on this list that cataloging time should not be spent on tasks that could be handled by automation.

I do not see what current needs relationship designators serve.  In our current "next generation" catalog, they cause problems because they are included in searches built formulated by clicking on a heading, for example a search on "Hicks, Melonnie $e author" does not retrieve "Hicks, Melonnie $e editor" or "Hicks, Melonnie".  Yes, this could be changed, but the powers that be are not convinced that it should be.  

I recently read an excellent article about how our "next generation" catalogs are going in a completely different direction than our theory based on FRBR, RDF, etc. :

The Ship Has Sailed and We Aren’t On It : How Catalogers Could Support User Tasks and Why We Won’t / Mary Z. Rose (JOURNAL OF LIBRARY METADATA Volume 12, Numbers 2–3, 2012)

Regards,

Amy



-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 8:51 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Relator codes

Annette

"Include a relationship designator for all creators, whether they are coded MARC 1XX or MARC 7XX."

I read that as a "yes" ;-)

Regards
Richard

_________________________
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
E-mail: [log in to unmask]



-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Annette Ingram
Sent: 27 August 2014 13:36
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Relator codes

Dear Robert

Thank you for your reply. Just one question. You say that if the MARC 1XX is not a creator, a relator designation is optional. But what if the 1XX is a creator (like the author of a book). Is the relator designation compulsory then?

Regards.
Annette

>>> Robert Bratton <[log in to unmask]> 2014/08/27 02:16 PM >>>
Hello Annette,

Here are the PCC Guidelines for the Application of Relationship Designators in Bibliographic Records:

http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/PCC%20RDA%20guidelines/Relat-Desig-Guidelines-AUTH-Final.docx

Two highlights"

"Include a relationship designator for all creators, whether they are coded MARC 1XX or MARC 7XX.  If the MARC  1XX is not a creator, the addition of a relationship designator is optional though strongly encouraged.  Add a relationship designator even if the MARC field definition already implies a relationship.  Relationships should be coded explicitly and not inferred from MARC or other parts of the record.

...

Guideline 9.  PCC highly encourages including relationship designators for all access points whenever it is clear what the relationship is."

Robert

--

Robert Bratton

Cataloging Librarian

Jacob Burns Law Library

George Washington University

Washington, DC


On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Annette Ingram <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Dear colleagues
>
> We are implementing RDA original cataloguing soon and I would like to 
> know whether the usage of relator codes (#e) with authors, editors, 
> corporate bodies, etc. is mandatory in RDA? We feel that it is 
> sometimes superfluous (like #eauthor) but would not like to contravene mandatory RDA guidelines.
> If it is mandatory, could I please have a reference to present to my 
> "critical" colleagues. I have been unsuccessful in finding a clear 
> guideline thus far.
>
> Thank you and kind regards.
>
> Annette Ingram (Cataloguer & trainer, University of Pretoria, 
> Pretoria, South Africa)
>


******************************************************************************************************************
Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk<http://www.bl.uk/> The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html<http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html>
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabook<http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook>
The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
*****************************************************************************************************************
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
*****************************************************************************************************************
Think before you print