Print

Print


Keeping with the 6XX tag in the bib to understand "has subject" relationships seems reasonable. 

I realize this may be a controversial idea (in an effort to minimize redundant data in MARC we’ve traditionally focused on linking from the bib to authorities), but… Where these subject specific designators/properties might be more useful is from the direction of the Authority Record, for example pointing from a Person Authority to Works about them. E.g.

100 0 # $a Ali, Muhammad, $d 1942-2016.

 

530 # 0 $i is subject of $a Ali (Motion picture)


To go through the trouble of adding “is subject of” data in Authorities, it’s important to understand what us want our applications to do and whether can’t be achieved already from the bib to authority direction. Maybe the most convincing reason to add 530’s like the one above is that it’s more machine actionable than the data captured in the note-like 672. If we’re going to go through the trouble of 672, why not just use a 530, 500$t, etc.?


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Amy Turner <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, March 9, 2017 at 9:29 AM
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] More confusing RDs (RSC/RelationshipWG/1/Sec final)

Within MARC, it seems redundant to identify a subject by both tag and subfield.  Couldn’t this be better handled by sticking to tag in MARC and then cross walking into relationship designators in BIBFRAME or whatever?

 

Amy

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chiat Naun Chew
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 9:22 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] More confusing RDs (RSC/RelationshipWG/1/Sec final)

 

An alternative may be to continue to use 6XX but define $i (or broaden the definition of $e) for it. $4 is already available.

--

Chew Chiat Naun
Director, Cataloging & Metadata Services
110D Olin Library
Cornell University
607 254 8031

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Netanel Ganin
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 9:05 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] More confusing RDs (RSC/RelationshipWG/1/Sec final)

 

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

 

 

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


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

ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242