Saturday, November 16, 2013

Relationship Designators in Bibliographic Records


We are supposed to be adding relationship designators whenever possible:

        PCC Guidelines for the Application of Relationship Designators in Bibliographic Records

These Guidelines are the result of the PCC Policy Committee’s (PoCo) consideration of recommendations made by the PCC Relationship Designator Task Force in their final report. The Guidelines are based on recommendations made in section 4 of the report but some guidelines have been edited to reflect policy decisions made by PoCo.   The Guidelines are meant to serve as a stand-alone document giving general guidance for catalogers beginning to apply relationship designators in their cataloging.  The document assumes an understanding of the appropriate RDA instructions and LC-PCC Policy Statements.  It is highly recommended that PCC catalogers take the training course on relationship designators that will be prepared by the PCC Standing Committee on Training in the near future.
The Guidelines do not apply to authority records.
OpCo agreed at the May 2, 2013 meeting to use these Guidelines without further task group review and modify them as we gain experience in using relationship designators.

       PCC Policy for Addition of Relationship Designators

Include a relationship designator for all creators, whether they are coded MARC 1XX or MARC 7XX.  If the MARC  1XX is not a creator, the addition of a relationship designator is optional though strongly encouraged.  Add a relationship designator even if the MARC field definition already implies a relationship.  Relationships should be coded explicitly and not inferred from MARC or other parts of the record.
100 1   Agunias, Dovelyn Rannveig, $e author.
700 1  Newland, Kathleen, $e author.
Other entity associated with work (not a creator):

100 1  Hull, William, $d 1753–1825, $e defendant.

General Guidelines for PCC Catalogers Applying RDA Relationship Designators

Guideline 1. Catalogers may begin to add relationship designators after they have received RDA training.  There is no “official start date.”
Guideline 2. It is recommended that PCC catalogers use relationship designators from the RDA appendices.   If the term needed is not there, use the PCC relationship designator proposal form to propose a new term or request a revision of an existing term.
If a PCC cataloger wishes to use a term from a different registered vocabulary (e.g., MARC relator terms, RBMS relationship designators, etc.), he/she may do so. Do not use a MARC relator code in $4 in addition to a MARC relator term.
Guideline 3. Within a hierarchy of relationship designators, prefer a specific term to a general one if it is easily determined. For example, use librettist rather than author for the creator of a libretto.
Guideline 4. Assign an RDA element name as a relationship designator, e.g., "creator" (19.2) or "publisher" (21.3) if it will most appropriately express the relationship. Note: This departure from RDA is necessary in our current MARC environment to express the relationship because not all RDA elements have dedicated MARC fields. However, do not propose RDA element names for inclusion in RDA relationship designator lists.
Guideline 5. If the nature of the relationship cannot be ascertained even at a general level, do not assign a relationship designator.
Guideline 6. Do not evaluate or edit older codes or terms in cataloging records unless they are clearly in error.  Add new, appropriate relationship designators following any existing codes or terms.
Guideline 7. Be careful to apply relationship designators in accordance with their definitions.  For example, note the difference between editor and editor of compilation, or between artist and illustrator.  If the definitions or the hierarchies appear to be problematic, propose changes to them.  Fast Track procedures are in process.
Guideline 8. In general, it is not necessary to provide access points for related entities not named in the resource.  However, other sources of information may be consulted to identify related entities and determine the nature of their relationship to the resource.

Guidelines for RDA Appendix I Relationship Designators

Guideline 9. PCC highly encourages including relationship designators for all access points whenever it is clear what the relationship is.
Guideline 10. If more than one relationship designator is appropriate because the same entity has multiple roles, preferably use repeating $e (or $j for MARC X11 fields).  If necessary, multiple headings may be used instead. Add relationship designators in WEMI order. 
100 1 Stone, Melicent, $e author, $e illustrator.
 100  1  Shore, David A., $e author.
 700  1  Shore, David A., $e former owner. $5 DNLM
Guideline 11. Note that the relationship designators in RDA Appendix I may be applied to families and corporate bodies as well as to individuals.
Guideline 12. Appendix I relationship designators should not be used in a name/title access point tagged MARC 700-711 or 800-811, or in a name/title linking field tagged MARC 76X-78X.

Guidelines for RDA Appendix J relationship designators

Guideline 13. The use of relationship designators for resource-to-resource relationships is encouraged.
Guideline 14. If a cataloger wishes to indicate a known relationship to a known resource, and the $i relationship information subfield is defined for the  MARC 7XX field being used, provide a relationship designator. Do so even if the field coding otherwise already expresses a relationship.
Guideline 15.  Where multiple relationships exist, e.g., an abridged translation, provide separate access points, each with a single relationship designator in a single $i subfield. Alternatively, identify one relationship as primary and record that relationship alone.
Guideline 16. Except in the case of sequential work or expression relationships and equivalent manifestation relationships for serials, it is not necessary to provide reciprocal relationship fields.
Guideline 17. Catalogers may add a 7XX field with a relationship designator referring to a specific related resource even if a 130 or 240 field is already present implying that they are versions of the same work.
Guideline 18. If there is reason to believe that the resource being cataloged is related to another resource, but the resource in question cannot be identified (e.g., in the case of an expression that is believed to be a translation but the original is unknown), give the information in a note.
Guideline 19. When constructing a reference to a related resource sharing the same principally responsible creator as the resource being described, use a 700/710/711/730 author-title entry explicitly naming the creator in its $a rather than a 740 title entry with an implied relationship to the 1XX in the same record.
Guideline 20. For unstructured descriptions it is not necessary to indicate the WEMI level at which the relationship is asserted.

[Source: Library of Congress, Program for Cooperative Cataloging]


See also:

Thanks all for your love, suggestions, testimonials, likes, +1, tweets and shares ....

See also related posts in following RDA Blog Categories (Labels):