That is extremely helpful to know, Gordon, thank you.
Celine
On Oct 24 2012, Gordon Dunsire wrote:
>All
>
> I'll send a separate email about relationship designators, but you should
> know that you can contact me with suggestions for extending any of the
> RDA vocabularies. As CILIP representative to JSC I represent the
> interests of all types of library in the UK (except the British Library).
> You can also contact any of the other CILIP members of the CILIP-BL
> Committee on RDA (see http://www.slainte.org.uk/aacr/committee.htm).
>
>Cheers
>
>Gordon
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Helen
>Williams
>Sent: 24 October 2012 12:08
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] DISCUSSION record 3
>
> Celine said: Also, Helen was quite right, App I isn't a closed list. I
> notice BL staff can use an appropriate term but are notifying someone
> when they do so. I feel we shouldn't just randomly assign terms as
> relationship designators without reporting that there might be a need to
> expand the list of terms in App I, a mechanism for doing this would be
> useful (probably already exists).
>
>Does anyone know of a reporting mechanism for this? I think I read that LC
>had a their own mechanism, as Celine says the BL do. What about non
>national libraries. I agree with Celine that randomly assigning terms isn't
>ideal.
>
>Helen
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of C.J.
>Carty
>Sent: 24 October 2012 11:53
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] DISCUSSION record 3
>
>On Oct 24 2012, Jenny Wright wrote:
>
>>I thought that "author" was the appropriate relationship designator for
>>Ross Spencer - even though he's not as'important' to the creation of
>>the work as the other two authors, it seemed to me that he added
>>written content of the work and was therefore author.
>
>I agree, after the discussion here today, that $e author seems correct for
>him (I don't think that's what I did).
>
>>Sponsoring body was the best I could up with for National Archives as a
>>710$e, though I felt it wasn't completely right.
>
>I agree sponsoring body is defined as "sponsoring some aspect of the work,
>e.g., funding research, sponsoring an event" whereas we have no information
>to support that and "issuing body" seems restricted to works that are
>"official organs of the body".
>
> However, I've just been reading through the BL workflow in the Toolkit
> where it says that: " "Publisher", "Distributor", "Manufacturer",
> "Creator" and "Contributor" are all elements in RDA, and the vocabularies
> specified in appendix I are refinements of these elements. Therefore,
> they may be used as relationship designators where necessary. "Issuing
> body" should only be used in cases where a publication can be regarded as
> the official organ of that body from the perspective of BL application."
> So think I'd go with "publisher" here.
>
> Also, Helen was quite right, App I isn't a closed list. I notice BL staff
> can use an appropriate term but are notifying someone when they do so. I
> feel we shouldn't just randomly assign terms as relationship designators
> without reporting that there might be a need to expand the list of terms
> in App I, a mechanism for doing this would be useful (probably already
> exists).
>
>Celine
>
>--
>Céline Carty
>English Cataloguing
>Cambridge University Library
>Cambridge CB3 9DR
>
>Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
>communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
>
--
Céline Carty
English Cataloguing
Cambridge University Library
Cambridge CB3 9DR
|