I think Stephen was referring specifically to the office of United States. President (2009-2017 : Obama).
But the point is that there are many kinds of relationships, whether between persons, between corporate bodies, between persons and corporate bodies, between works, and all the other possible permutations. No controlled
list of relationship designators can provide all the relationships we might want to show. Should we use one that is misleading or nonsensical or not use one at all?
How about “was?”
“Chief executive of” was an unfortunate replacement in the 2016 update for an earlier relationship designator “Incumbent”, which was used in this sort of situation and actually made a sort of sense (as “incumbent of”). As has been pointed out, the current RD doesn’t work; but there isn’t any longer an appropriate RD for an AAP such as “United States. President (2009-2017 : Obama)”.
Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
I agree with John Hostage's point that "510 1 $i Chief executive of: $a United States. $b President (2009-2017 : Obama)" is poorly constructed--the relationship should be with "United States." But where and how would that best be coded?
551 $i Chief executive of: $a United States $w r
This coding would treat the standalone US name as geographic, as usual; but DCM Z1 for 551 says not to use subfield $i in 551 until relationship designators for places are developed for RDA.
510 1 $i Chief executive of: $a United States $w r
This coding would emphasize the corporateness of the US in this case, and use of the subfield $i is valid per DCM Z1 for 510. It's also arguably redundant with "510 1 $a United States. $b President (2009-2017 : Obama)", which should also be on the record.
370 $i Chief executive of: $f United States $s 2009 $t 2017 $2 naf
This coding might also be considered, enabling us to take advantage of subfields $s and $t to add the dates; but one could argue again that 370 should be for relationships to geographic places, not corporate entities.
Field 373 for a relationship to a corporate entity might also be considered, but subfield $i is not currently approved for use there in MARC Authorities.
Is there a preferred practice?
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Hostage, John <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Looking at the record brings up another unrelated point that has been bothering me: the President is chief executive of the United States.
To use a less controversial example, Barack Obama was chief executive of the United States, not as his NAR states, chief executive of “United States. President (2009-2017 : Obama).” That is the AAP for an office he held and functions as kind of an alternative identity. The concept is kind of anomalous in the RDA scheme of things.
Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
Langdell Hall 194
Harvard Law School Library
Cambridge, MA 02138
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917
While I have no respect whatsoever for the person currently holding the office, is such non-objective information what we really want in our authority records?:
010 n 85387872
670 Newsweek.com, 16 November 2017 ǂb (When has Trump been accused of rape or attempted rape? Allegations include a child, his wife and a business associate) ǂu http://www.newsweek.com/
donald-trump-rape-sexual- assault-minor-wife-business- victims-roy-moore-713531
670 Root.com, 6 December 2017 ǂb (President Pussy Grabber damn near stumps for accused Sex Offender Roy Moore, because of course he would) ǂu https://www.theroot.com/
president-pussy-grabber-damn- near-stumps-for-accused-se- 1820657867
678 Donald Trump (born 1946) is a U.S. real estate developer, billionaire, television personality, political candidate, and author. Trump has been accused of sexual assault and sexual harassment, including non-consensual kissing or groping, by at least fifteen women since the 1980s.
Following that perverse logic, I would expect such additions as: 372 Sexual harassment of women $2 lcsh
Seriously, I try to exclude all judgmental characterizations—positive or negative—from my authority work, and I believe others should do so as well. IMO, whoever added the data in bold-face ought to remove it. It just adds fuel to an already out-of-control conflagration.
Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh