A joint task group consisting of members of the PCC Standing Committee on Training and the PCC Standing Committee on Standards has drafted a PCC Guidelines for Relationship Designators in Authority Records document over the last year or so. It has gone up the approval process and should be out shortly (still a few technical details, evidently, on LC’s part).


The short answer to your question, however, is yes, you should use a relationship designator with a 5XX field if an appropriate one is available. Capitalize the designator and follow with a colon. Also record “$w r” E.g.:


100 1_ Alexander, Lloyd. ǂt Book of three. ǂl Spanish ǂs (Solé)

500 1_ ǂi Translator: ǂa Solé, Albert ǂw r

500 1_ ǂi Contained in (expression): ǂa Alexander, Lloyd. ǂt Chronicles of Prydain. ǂl Spanish ǂs (Solé) ǂw r


110 2_ A.H. Cox & Co.

510 2_ ǂi Successor: ǂa Hoechst UK Ltd. ǂw r


Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Borries
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 12:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Question about use of RDA relators in authority records


I know I should know this, so apologize for taking up people’s time, but is it considered best practice now to use relators in MARC 500 fields, rather than the field by itself, or is this a matter of cataloger’s judgment?  I don’t recall seeing a policy statement here, but since I am something of a “jack-of-all-trades” here, I often miss things, and I seem to see records done both ways.  Many thanks to all for keeping me informed.


Michael S. Borries

Cataloger, City University of New York

151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor

New York, NY  10010

Phone: (646) 312-1687

Email: [log in to unmask]