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
Cambridge University Library
Cambridge CB3 9DR