Print

Print


I agree. In some cases the parenthetical specifies the domain of the
relationship and in other cases it specifies the range of the relationship.
It would be less ambiguous and more user friendly if this difference was
reflected in syntax:

(person) described in
description of (person)

etc.

Stephen

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Adam L. Schiff <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> RSC/RelationshipWG/1/Sec final lists a number of new subject relationship
> designators that will be going into RDA:
>
>
>
> M.2.6  Person as Subject of aWork
>
>
>
> described in (person) A work that describes a described person.
>
> Reciprocal relationship: description of (person)
>
>
>
> description of (person) A person described by a describing work.
>
> Reciprocal relationship: described in (person)
>
>
>
> M.2.7 Family as Subject of a Work
>
>
>
> described in (family) A work that describes a described family.
>
> Reciprocal relationship: description of (family)
>
>
>
> description of (family) A family described by a describing work.
>
> Reciprocal relationship: described in (family)
>
>
>
> M.2.8 Corporate Body as Subject of a Work
>
>
>
> described in (corporate body) A work that describes a described corporate
> body.
>
> Reciprocal relationship: description of (corporate body)
>
>
>
> description of (corporate body) A corporate body described by a describing
> work.
>
> Reciprocal relationship: described in (corporate body)
>
>
>
> While I applaud finally having designators to use for persons, corporate
> bodies, and families that are the subjects of works, we again have a
> situation where the “described in” designators are completely
> incomprehensible with the parenthetical addition.   If these designators
> display in ILS’s users will not understand them.  The definitions are quite
> clear, but wouldn’t the designators have been much clearer if they’d been
> formulated some other way, e.g.  “person described in”, “family described
> in”, and “corporate body described in”?  I understand that the qualifier
> refers to the agent being described, but there must be a more clear way of
> making the designators suitable for both RDF and linked data as well as ILS
> displays.
>
>
>
> I’m also wondering why we shouldn’t use “subject” instead of “description
> of”.  Isn’t this much simpler and clear?  “subject of” could replace
> “described in”.
>
>
>
>
>
> Adam L. Schiff
>
> Principal Cataloger
>
> University of Washington Libraries
>
> Cataloging & Metadata Services
>
> Box 352900
>
> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>



-- 
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