Print

Print


Maybe I am too cynical here, but what about
Chaos contained in RDA
RDA container of Chaos
??
Gene

On Wednesday, March 8, 2017, 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] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>
>
>
>