This may be a very dense question, as I'm sure there must be a good reason, I'm just not seeing it. 

What is the advantage of having three terms for "founded/founder" if these are not intended for public display? The system will know if the founding entity is a person, family, or corporate body because they'll be coded differently if in MARC, or entered into different fields, if in a pure RDA environment like RIMMF.

That is, if there were a single term "founded" to be applied when entity A founded entity B, the information is already encoded as to whether entity A is a person, family, or corporate body -- so why create separate terms for each?

Best,

Netanel Ganin

Pronouns: he/his/him


On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 2:02 PM, John Hostage <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I think part of the problem is that it was an attempt to keep the key word that expresses the relationship (founded) at the beginning of the term.  “of person” or “of corporate body” function as qualifiers to distinguish otherwise identical relationship designators.  I don’t know why they didn’t use parentheses as in Appendix J.

The meaning of the relationship designator seem to be that I.M. Pei (a person) has a “founded corporate body” called I.M. Pei Associates.  As in Appendix J, these relationship designators weren’t really intended for public display.

 

------------------------------------------

John Hostage

Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger

Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services

Langdell Hall 194

Harvard Law School Library

Cambridge, MA 02138

[log in to unmask]

+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)

+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]GOV] On Behalf Of Ed M. Kazzimir
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 12:46


To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] "founded corporate body" now three wordy RDs

 

"... That’s why it’s so confusing."

 

That's not the only reason why it's so confusing.  I agree with Hal that the preposition "of" is grammatically incorrect, and does not make sense in English.  The proper English preposition for the causative agent or agency is "by", not "of" (the equivalent of the instrumental case in other languages).

 

The word "of" must be connected either to the word "founded" or "body".  The designator as currently written means either "founded ... of" (which makes no sense to me; how is something founded of someone or something?) or "body of" (which again is bewildering).  Or am I new to the expression "founded of"?

 

In regards to this example:

    I.M. Pei Associates is the founded corporate body of person, I.M. Pei.

The English should be "is the corporate body founded by person ..."  The body is founded by someone.  It is a "founded corporate body" where "founded" modifies the noun "body", but the body is not "of" a person.  Perhaps the phrasing "body of person" (a genitive construction) can mean something (it does not to me), but I find it to be such a bizarre and highly unusual grammatical construction that it becomes meaningless in ordinary speech.

 

 

Ed Kazzimir

Alaska Resources Library and Information Services.

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]GOV] On Behalf Of John Hostage
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 7:51 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] "founded corporate body" now three wordy RDs

 

Richard’s way is correct.  That is the example used in LC-PCC PS for K.1.  I generally imagine a whispered “has” before the relationship designator.  As stated on page 9 of the document I referenced earlier, the direction of the relationships in the Toolkit is sometimes ambiguous.  However, the definitions can be helpful.

founded corporate body of person   An organization that the person founded.

 

It defines an organization, so that’s what comes after the designator in the 5XX field.

 

In RDF terms, a relationship designator is like the predicate of a triple, and this one includes both the domain (person) and the range (corporate body) of the triple.  That’s why it’s so confusing. 

 

------------------------------------------

John Hostage

Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger

Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services

Langdell Hall 194

Harvard Law School Library

Cambridge, MA 02138

[log in to unmask]

+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)

+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]GOV] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 11:15
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] "founded corporate body" now three wordy RDs

 

I think it’s Paul’s way round ;-)

 

K.2.3 has “Record an appropriate term from the following list with the authorized access point or identifier for a related person”. In MARC 21 we do that in a 500 field. To record a person’s relationship to a body, we record a term from the list, and the authorized access point for the person, in a 500 field in the NAR for the corporate body:

 

1102 $a I.M. Pei Associates

5001 $i Founder: $a Pei, I.M., $d 1917- $w r

 

Imagine a whispered “see also” before the relationship designator…

 

At least, I hope that’s right or we’ve been doing it wrong.

 

 

Regards

Richard

 

________________________

Richard Moore

Authority Control Team Manager

The British Library

                                                                       

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546104                                  

E-mail: [log in to unmask]      

 

           

 

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]GOV] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: 08 September 2016 16:02
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] "founded corporate body" now three wordy RDs

 

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.

 

b

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]GOV] On Behalf Of Paul Robert Burley
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 10:32 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] "founded corporate body" now three wordy RDs

 

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

 

Paul Burley

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]GOV] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 8:34 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] "founded corporate body" now three wordy RDs

 

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)

 

b

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]GOV] 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?



RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY

BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187


 
******************************************************************************************************************

Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk

The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html

Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. 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] : 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