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