[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Duplicate entry in authors.tt2 (is this bug 958954?)

[Tony Bandy]

Hi all,

Just wanted to say “thank you” for all the good discussion(s) about this.  We are now evaluating the responses and working with our catalogers to see how they want to tackle this issue.

So going forward, should we file additional bug reports on this—or what’s the best way to bring about change?

Appreciate it!!!

--Tony

Tony Bandy
tonyb at ohionet.org<mailto:tonyb at ohionet.org>
OHIONET
1500 West Lane Ave.
Columbus, OH  43221-3975
614-484-1074 (Direct)
614-486-2966 x19

From: Open-ils-general [mailto:open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Hardy, Elaine
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2015 9:33 AM
To: Evergreen Discussion Group
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Duplicate entry in authors.tt2 (is this bug 958954?)

I think it is LC practice to use the terms rather than the codes.

Elaine

J. Elaine Hardy
PINES & Collaborative Projects Manager
Georgia Public Library Service
1800 Century Place, Ste 150
Atlanta, Ga. 30345-4304

404.235.7128
404.235.7201, fax
ehardy at georgialibraries.org<mailto:ehardy at georgialibraries.org>
www.georgialibraries.org<http://www.georgialibraries.org>
www.georgialibraries.org/pines<http://www.georgialibraries.org/pines>

From: Open-ils-general [mailto:open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Chris Owens
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 9:05 AM
To: open-ils-general at list.georgialibraries.org<mailto:open-ils-general at list.georgialibraries.org>
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Duplicate entry in authors.tt2 (is this bug 958954?)

Regarding Dan's list, which is a good breakdown of the various issues, Part (d) really should be a case of one or the other. There should not be both a $e relator term and $4 relator code in the same field.

I am not an RDA expert (or a particularly big fan), but if we are looking to the future I think the $e relator term should take precedence over the $4 relator code. All the RDA records we are seeing are using the $e rather than the $4 and when our consortium just went through the RDA process on all of our records with Backstage, all the $4 codes were converted to $e relator terms.

Thanks,
Chris
Chris Owens
Director
Blanchester Public Library
110 N. Broadway
Blanchester, OH 45107
937-783-3585
937-783-2910 (fax)
cowens at blanlibrary.org<mailto:cowens at blanlibrary.org>


On 5/29/2015 10:57 AM, Dan Scott wrote:
It sounds like there are a few issues here, let me see if I can separate them out:
a) bug: relator term $e is not being recognized as the relator, but is included in the text display along with parenthetical notation for the default relationship (e.g. 700 = (added author))
b) bug: multiple $4 relator codes are not displayed properly, where "properly" might mean something like "$700 $a White, Jack $4 cre $4 dir" should be displayed as "White, Jack (creator, director)"
c) bug: the default relationship of "added author" for 7xx fields when no relator code or term is specified needs to reflect the underlying item type (e.g. for a musical recording, should display something like "Added artist")
d) discussion issue: when both $e relator terms and $4 relator codes are included in the same field, it's not clear what to display
e) (unknown if this is an issue, but "probably") $e relator terms and $4 relator codes may or may not be indexed as expected

For my part on (d), I'm still firmly of the belief that $4 relator code should take precedence; it's value can easily be translated in the display (and is, for French) and can be used for linked data (like pointing to http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/dtc), whereas the $e relator terms are effectively uncontrolled text fields that make both translation and linked data much, much more difficult.

Dan

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Hardy, Elaine <ehardy at georgialibraries.org<mailto:ehardy at georgialibraries.org>> wrote:
+1


Elaine

J. Elaine Hardy
PINES & Collaborative Projects Manager
Georgia Public Library Service
1800 Century Place, Ste 150
Atlanta, Ga. 30345-4304

404.235.7128<tel:404.235.7128>
404.235.7201<tel:404.235.7201>, fax
ehardy at georgialibraries.org<mailto:ehardy at georgialibraries.org>
www.georgialibraries.org<http://www.georgialibraries.org>
www.georgialibraries.org/pines<http://www.georgialibraries.org/pines>

From: Open-ils-general [mailto:open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org<mailto:open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org>] On Behalf Of Sarah Childs
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 4:51 PM
To: Evergreen Discussion Group
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Duplicate entry in authors.tt2 (is this bug 958954?)

A summary of what I propose:
If no subfield e or 4, no term should be displayed.
Display subfield e if present
Display terms based on codes in subfield 4 if present
If both subfield e or 4 are present, display one or the other. (Either is fine with me)





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-general/attachments/20150601/87ac7d05/attachment-0001.html>