Print

Print


We have long relied on statements of responsibility or notes about
responsibility to tell us the role that a creator, contributor, agent, etc
plays in a resource. You didn't need to explicitly say in the main/added
entry what the role was as soon as we got to machine-readable cards where
the whole description was usually present on all of the cards. So we
started even dropping the roles that had been used when the cards had to be
hand typed, e.g., ed., jt. ed., jt. author.

Like so many things, our tradition is based in typing or writing effort.
Digital resources push this as so many other things because the
responsibility is often not expressed in a statement like one you'd see on
a title page or in movie credits. It's easier to give the entity name and
role than to do a statement of responsibility or note. Roles buried in
statements and notes about responsibility of course cannot be pulled out
for bibframing.

When I catalog my own books on LibraryThing, I have no trouble seeing the
value of the role being explicitly stated for all related
creators/contributors and the role of some contributors is obscure. I just
need to catch up to Stanford's practice.

Sherman Clarke
freelance art cataloger
Alfred, NY

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Simon Spero <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> At least the 100 can't be a fictional character - spirit authors must be
> claimed to be real.
>
> Some folks on the public-vocabs list seem to believe that fictional things
> have *all* the properties of real things, as well as being fictional.
> I should ask them to reserve meeting space at the Hotel California to
> discuss the details.
>
> (
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Oct/0119.html#start119
> )
> et. seq.
>
> Simon
> On Oct 22, 2014 9:08 PM, "Adam L. Schiff" <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> 1XX is not necessarily creator either.  There are some situations where
>> the entity recorded in the 1XX is not a creator, but is otherwise
>> associated with a work, and the cataloging rules tell us that the work can
>> be named with that entity.  An example in RDA are defendants in
>> prosecutions.  RDA 6.29.1.21 Criminal Proceedings and Appeals tells us (and
>> this was the same in AACR2):
>>
>> For the official proceedings and records of criminal trials,
>> impeachments, courts-martial, etc., and the proceedings of appeals in these
>> types of cases, construct the authorized access point by combining (in this
>> order):
>> a) the authorized access point representing the person or body prosecuted
>> (see 9.19.1 for persons or 11.13.1 for corporate bodies, as applicable)
>> b) the preferred title for the proceedings, etc. (see 6.19.2).
>>
>> If more than one person or body is prosecuted, construct the authorized
>> access point representing the work by combining (in this order):
>> a) the authorized access point representing the first defendant, etc.,
>> named in the preferred source of information (see 9.19.1 for persons or
>> 11.13.1 for corporate bodies, as applicable)
>> b) the preferred title for the proceedings, etc. (see 6.19.2).
>>
>> In RDA, defendants are considered "Other Persons, Families, or Corporate
>> Bodies Associated with a Work" (See RDA 19.3 and Appendix I.2.2).  They are
>> not creators, but they would be recorded in the 1XX field.  So I think we
>> need to even be careful about assuming that 1XX always corresponds to a
>> creator. Probably the safest thing to do when no relationship designator is
>> present in 1XX and 7XX is to use bf:agent.  But since most 1XX are
>> creators, I don't object to that mapping as much as I do to mapping all 7XX
>> to contributor.
>>
>> Adam Schiff
>> Principal Cataloger
>> University of Washington Libraries
>>
>> On Wed, 22 Oct 2014, Guenther, Rebecca wrote:
>>
>>  Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:35:30 -0400
>>> From: "Guenther, Rebecca" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Reply-To: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>>>     <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] 7XX fields without relator terms
>>>
>>> What is most important, I agree, is the role the entity plays in
>>> relation to the resource. Yes, it's a problem that 1XX is mapped to
>>> creator, while 7XX to contributor, since many of the entities in 7XX are
>>> creators and it is just the fact that 1XX isn't repeatable that they are
>>> mapped to contributor (because there's no way to tell which of the 7XX are
>>> creators).  This was always a problem for mapping MARC to Dublin Core for
>>> instance (and MODS chose not to make a distinction between creator and
>>> contributor). It is a problem with existing data and we would be served
>>> better if the roles had been recorded (but it was policy not to-except in
>>> certain cases-- rather than the ability to do it in the format). RDA
>>> certainly puts more importance on naming the role.  But whether the
>>> particular role is considered creator or contributor varies according to
>>> the type of resource-and for AV materials it is particularly challenging
>>> because there are so many different contributions.  RDA Appendix I tells
>>> you what roles to consider creator and what contributor, but there may not
>>> be general agreement on that for all kinds of resources. For instance, for
>>> audio materials, if you have popular music the performer has been
>>> considered the creator, but for musical works the creator is  the
>>> conductor-- but RDA Appendix I tells us that performers are contributors.
>>> I might argue that the distinction of creator vs contributor isn't useful
>>> because it's subjective and depends on the particular form of material and
>>> that it is the particular role that allows you to make these distinctions.
>>>
>>> This challenge is expressed well in the AV BIBFRAME report:
>>>
>>> "The creation of time-based media is rarely the product of a single
>>> "creator."  Unlike the case of
>>> printed materials, which are typically the product of one or at most a
>>> small handful of agents, who generally share the same role (e.g. multiple
>>> authors of a book or journal article), the creation of a typical studio
>>> album, film,
>>> television, or radio program can involve several personal or corporate
>>> agents performing various functions in the creation of content. Depending
>>> on the type of content, the roles of these "primary" agents might include
>>> performer, screenwriter, director, producer, editor, cameraperson, actor,
>>> speaker, composer, recording engineer,
>>> interviewer, etc. There are many more additional agents who might be
>>> considered additional "contributors." Other
>>> agents fulfilling a wider range of roles may also contribute to the
>>> creation, but be considered "additional"
>>> agents. Therefore, identifying the primary "creator" and supporting
>>> "contributors," for this content, as is often required in library
>>> cataloging, is very challenging, and can lead to inconsistent or even
>>> misleading descriptions." [1]
>>>
>>> Rebecca
>>>
>>> [1] Kara Van Maissen, BIBFRAME AV Modeling Study
>>> http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/pdf/bibframe-avmodelingstudy-may15-2014.pdf
>>> (p. 6)
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:
>>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Philip Schreur
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 3:47 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] 7XX fields without relator terms
>>>
>>> I totally agree.  And it's why when we made the switch to RDA for our
>>> original cataloging a few years back we made the commitment to add role for
>>> all persons and corporate bodies in our cataloging (and trace all creators,
>>> no matter how many).  It takes a bit of getting used to but seems natural
>>> now.
>>>
>>> Phil
>>> Stanford University
>>>
>>> On 10/22/14 12:08 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>> It's important for ALL creative works. That's why it's too bad that the
>>> data only separates between "main entry" and "other" without further
>>> distinction. But without some role coding, all you can know, from a machine
>>> interpretation point of view, is "main/other." Oh, and most of the time we
>>> don't even know the role of the main entry, because "main entry" isn't a
>>> creative role.
>>>
>>> Take this as a lesson of the difference between creating data for
>>> humans, and creating data for machines. We're still doing the former.
>>> Should we continue to do so?
>>>
>>> kc
>>> On 10/22/14 10:42 AM, Gordon, Bruce J. wrote:
>>> For sound and audiovisual items the distinction between contributor and
>>> creator is important.
>>>
>>> -Bruce
>>>
>>> Bruce J. Gordon
>>> Audio Engineer
>>> Audio Preservation Services - a shared service of the Harvard Library
>>> Harvard University
>>> Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
>>> U.S.A
>>> tel. +1(617) 495-1241
>>> fax +1(617) 496-4636
>>>
>>> On Oct 22, 2014, at 1:19 PM, J. McRee Elrod <[log in to unmask]<mailto:
>>> [log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Joe said:
>>>
>>>
>>> The LC conversion uses bf:contributor as a default when there is no
>>> explicit
>>> role.  The problem is that entities named in 7XXs may be contributors,
>>> but
>>> others may be creators ...
>>>
>>>
>>> I doubt if patrons know or care about a distinction between "contributor"
>>> and" creator"; "agent" introduces a third term not in present rules.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>> >)
>>> {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>>> ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Karen Coyle
>>>
>>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> http://kcoyle.net
>>>
>>> m: +1-510-435-8234
>>>
>>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 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
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>