Paul, unless I’m mistaken I think it’s the other way around.
“Founder” is listed under relators from persons to cb’s (K.2.3) and “Founded corporate body of person” is under relators from corporate bodies to persons (K.4.1)
So I think it should be:
100 1\ $a Pei, I. M., $d 1917-
500 2\ $i Founder: $a I.M. Pei Associates $w r
500 2\ $a I.M. Pei Associates
100 1\ $i Founded corporate body of person: $a Pei, I. M., $d 1917-
(It makes slightly more sense if you insert a silent is the between the term and its antecedent, i.e.:
I.M. Pei is the founder of I.M. Pei Associates
I.M. Pei Associates is the founded corporate body of person, I.M. Pei.)
Why the prepositional phrase “of person [corporate body, etc.]” belongs in the latter relator is a bit of a mystery to me.
To clarify, we should now use:
100 1# $a Pei, I. M., $d 1917-
510 2# $w r $i Founded corporate body of person: $a I.M. Pei Associates
It’s definitely confusing to to point of near meaninglessness, and I’m not sure it’s really necessary to specify person, corporate body, etc. in the relationship itself. (No other relators that I know of do this.)
For the life of me I cannot figure out what’s wrong with
“Founder:” (connecting corp. body to person/corp. body/family that founded the entity)
“Founded:” (connecting person/corp. body/family to corp. body they founded)
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 8:33 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] "founded corporate body" now three wordy RDs
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 2:12 AM, Moore, Richard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
The phrase “Founded corporate body of person” is (one assumes) clear to whoever devised it, is obscure to you and me, and will be meaningless to a user.
It has the look of a phrase mechanically translated and rearranged from a different language, invoking a rule that in English an adjective must precede the noun it modifies, though here it functions as a past participle, and with a preposition translated "of" that would be properly translated as "by". Might this have been the process?