Rebecca’s and Stephen’s comments get to the heart of it.  The MARC 1XX tag does not really say the role, it is just the support of a “certain kind of citation” and a differentiator of titles that are alike.  We used to call that main entry but cannot say that any more.  AAP takes it place and is an interesting transformation.   As Adam points out “most” of the 1XX are authors  and since not everything is perfect he suggested going with calling it creator.  As for the MARC 7XX, I have no idea how many are actually creators unless there is a role attached – and sometimes there is – so I agree with calling them agents unless there is a role.

Since I have wished cataloging specified roles ever since I started using libraries, i.e., as a user, I will not say how many times I have asked why we did not do it. Going forward I hope that catalogers will be supplying roles on agents they associate with their descriptions.  After all, they know the role or they would not be taking the time to associate the agent.


From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 5:54 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] 7XX fields without relator terms

And then there's the problem of asking the 1XX to be both the entry term for a certain kind of citation and the expression of the relationship between an agent and the work. If the author/title text string used to specify the the work contained in a manifestation was separated from the 245 construction and recorded independently somewhere else (carrying with it the hapless 240 field), then all the names could be expressed with their role relationships in 7XX fields and the citation form could also be preserved, since it does have uses.


On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Guenther, Rebecca <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
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]


[1] Kara Van Maissen, BIBFRAME AV Modeling Study (p. 6)

From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Philip Schreur
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 3:47 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[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.

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?

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 J. Gordon
Audio Engineer
Audio Preservation Services - a shared service of the Harvard Library
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
tel. +1(617) 495-1241<tel:%2B1%28617%29%20495-1241>
fax +1(617) 496-4636<tel:%2B1%28617%29%20496-4636>

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://
 ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________


Karen Coyle

[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

m: +1-510-435-8234<tel:%2B1-510-435-8234>

skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600<tel:%2B1-510-984-3600>

Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Data Management & Access, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
160 Wilson Library
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Ph: 612-625-2328
Fx: 612-625-3428
ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242