Hi Judy, (and all),
I’m curious about this part of your message:
Yes, I sometimes used the name of a specific publisher when creating series authority records to distinguish different series with the same titles proper; but I was creating manifestation authorized access points. RDA does not yet (!) address authorized access points for manifestations.
LC-PCC PS 126.96.36.199 (Additions to access points representing works), in the section titled “Serials (Including Numbered and Unnumbered Monographic Series), part 2a [for generic titles] instructs us to “use as the qualifier the body issuing or publishing the serial.” Part 2b [for other situations] lists “corporate body” as an option without further explanation, so one would assume it also includes the publisher’s name, as in 2a.
So, it looks like we are still to create manifestation authorized access points for monographic series per PCC policy. Is that your understanding too? There are many cases where the publisher’s name is the only qualifier that will allow distinguishing one series AAP from another in a meaningful way. (The title is common, the associated place is the same, and the associated dates are sufficiently close to be unhelpful.)
The Policy Statement also goes on to talk about date and place of publication as options for qualifiers, but as I understand it, we are allowed to sub these in for date and place of creation of the series work, since the latter data points are usually difficult to determine or to distinguish from the former. (Does anyone know where this is documented?)
P.S. Judy, many thanks for your series authority training and documentation back in the day. It provided an excellent foundation that is still valid, as it was/is based on a thorough understanding of the nature of the materials.
Mary Jane Cuneo
Serials cataloging and NACO
Information and Technical Services
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of RSC Secretary
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 10:56 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: "Publisher" as relationship designator--correct or not?
I'm writing to offer some clarification because it is easy to get confused between "publisher" (a recorded element in chapter 21) with "publisher's name" (a transcribed element in chapter 2). Also it is important to remember that the relationship "publisher" applies only to a manifestation and "issuing body", the other relationship being discussed in this email thread, applies to the work. It is easy to forget the distinctions because both publisher and issuing body authorized access points end up in the single MARC bibliographic record where what entity belongs to which of the levels (work, expression, manifestation, item) is not identified.
Chapter 21 is the chapter for persons, families, and corporate bodies associated with a manifestation. RDA 21.3 addresses recording the name of a specific publisher if it is important for access; doing so is a separate action from transcribing the publisher's name as found on the manifestation in MARC field 264. Then you can choose to include the relationship designator "publisher" (per 18.5 in the introductory chapter for this section and use that general designator per PCC policy) in the authorized access point.
Giving the name of a specific publisher as part of an authorized point for an expression is not appropriate because publisher is a manifestation element, not an expression element. Yes, I sometimes used the name of a specific publisher when creating series authority records to distinguish different series with the same titles proper; but I was creating manifestation authorized access points. RDA does not yet (!) address authorized access points for manifestations.
An issuing body can be an access point for a work but it is not a creator. The relationship designator "issuing body" is in I.2.2 (the section for entities related in some way other than creator to the work; the relationship designators for creators are in I.2.1). That division corresponds to the divisions in chapter 19 between creators in 19.2 and other entities associated with work in 19.3.
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Lammert, Richard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
The way I use the relationship designator (and the way I see others using it) is as "other distinguishing characteristic of an expression" for constructing the AAP for an expression (RDA 6.27.3). In the absence of a named translator, a publisher often works well to distinguish expressions. (You are correct about Appendix I.4, however; I should have referred to I.3).
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Matthew C. Haugen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Can I ask how one would apply the relationship designators publisher, distributor, etc. in authority records rather than bibliographic records? Appendix I.4 relationships are at the level of the manifestation.