I think (the other) Oxford University's policy will be to recommend
relationship designators for GII entities where applicable, quite
possibly even adding them to downloaded records; but for corporate
bodies it often will not be possible, because their roles are often
ill-defined. I suspect that the usefulness of these relators for
sorting might be limited by variations in usage. For instance, BL would
consider a reviser an 'editor', but I would think of a reviser as an
author because revision is normally associated with some new text, not
just correction and tidying.
Catalogue Support Librarian
Osney One Building
Oxford OX2 0EW.
From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Sent: 24 October 2012 10:45
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [CIG-E-FORUM] Record 2 discussion
Re Helen's comments below:
*some of us have included a second 264 field with a (c) date
* some of us (including me!) have included a relationship designator of
'author' - what's the feeling about whether this is necessary on a
* A few people have included related works/manifestations
I wondered if including a second 264 was perhaps taking things a bit too
far, so didn't include it.
How important are these relationship designators likely to become
further down the road? If their presence is going to be crucial within
the context of the semantic web (!), perhaps we need to be consistent
and apply throughout.
Do you have examples of where folks have included related
works/manifestations, just to be sure I'm clear on what this means.