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