Having just had another look, I can see what you mean about the instruction in 21.3 to record publisher if considered important. As there is no obvious relationship designator, I guess we could either construct one (publisher?) or not put one in at all (18.4 talks about using relationship designators to "indicate the nature of the relationship more specifically than is indicated by the defined scope of the element itself"). Although not putting anything doesn't seem very satisfactory.
From: C.J. Carty [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of C.J. Carty [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 24 October 2012 11:46
To: Nicky Ransom
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] DISCUSSION record 3
On Oct 24 2012, Nicky Ransom wrote:
> I suppose National Archives has a relationship to the manifestation,
> rather than the work, and then the only option in the RDA Appendix is
> "Broadcaster", which clearly isn't right! I probably wouldn't give them
> an entry as they are part of the publication statement and Facet don't
> get an added entry, but I'm happy to be corrected!
I went and checked rules because I wanted to justify my transcription of
National Archives in the publisher statement too. I'm including it in
publisher based on 2.8.4, though this is optional and it's only core RDA to
have the first named publisher.
As regards the access point, I think that there's a rule for including
publisher as corporate body with relationhip to the manifestation in 21.3
that I feel justifies giving an access point. However, I completely agree
that the only relationship designator listed for this in the Appendix is
"broadcaster" which definitely doesn't work.