Print

Print


While I agree with much of what's been said in this thread, I also have a
practical question:

the LC-PCC-PS at M.2 states:

LC practice/PCC practice: The relationship designators found in
M.2.2-M.2.5, if used, are recorded in $i of a 7XX added entry field or a
7XX linking entry field, or incorporated into a note. If applying LCSH, the
optional use of these relationship designators does not replace any
applicable LCSH subject access fields (e.g., a 6XX heading for a work in a
bibliographic record that represents a commentary on that work).

All these proposed terms will be entering at M.2.6 or later and thus are
currently outside the scope of the LC-PCC-PS. Thus my question is: will the
scope of the policy statement be adjusted to incorporate these new terms
and therefore we'll be entering an array such as:


130 0 _ Ali (Motion picture)

600 1 0 Ali, Muhammad, $d 1942-2016.

700 1 _ $i Description of (person): $a Ali, Muhammad, $d 1942-2016.

That is, so long as we're cataloging in the MARC environment, will we be
doubling subject access points for Agents?


in solidarity,

Netanel Ganin
------------------------------------------------------------
Metadata Coordinator -- Hebrew Specialty
Brandeis University
(781) 736-4645 / [log in to unmask]

My pronouns are he/him/his


On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Folsom, Steven <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Agreed, a simple subject/subjectOf set of properties would be sufficient.
>
> Are PCC members free to choose already existing less complicated non-RDA
> properties? (sorry for all those adjectives in one sentence)? Maybe this is
> more possible with URIs in the $4?
>
> ————
> Steven Folsom
> Metadata Technologies Program Manager
> Harvard Library
> http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3427-5769
>
>
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on
> behalf of Chiat Naun Chew <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thursday, March 9, 2017 at 8:14 AM
> To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] More confusing RDs (RSC/RelationshipWG/1/Sec final)
>
> I had hoped that RDA would reconsider its practice of duplicating
> relationships for different entity types, but it does not appear that this
> is happening. It is not self-evident that because a person is a different
> kind of thing from a corporate body, it requires two distinct kinds of
> activity to describe them. It’s also not clear that the FRBR model requires
> it. It may be noted that personal and corporate authorship are covered by
> the same RDA relationship. Why does the same not apply to subjects?
>
>
> --
> Chew Chiat Naun
> Director, Cataloging & Metadata Services
> 110D Olin Library
> Cornell University
> 607 254 8031 <(607)%20254-8031>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on
> behalf of Stephen Hearn <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* 08 March 2017 19:01:53
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] More confusing RDs (RSC/RelationshipWG/1/Sec
> final)
>
> 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 <(612)%20625-2328>
> Fx: 612-625-3428 <(612)%20625-3428>
> ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242
>