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

[Hardy, Elaine]

It is my understanding that, under RDA, relator terms (|e) should be the 
controlled values that can be coded in |4 
(http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html). However, records cataloged 
using AACR2, the |e would not necessarily have been a controlled term, or at 
least, not a the current controlled terms (|e ill. vs |e Illustrator, for 
example).



So, I think Dan’s point for the relator code to take precedence is a good 
one since our bib databases will contain a mixture of RDA and AACR2 (and 
previous rules!!) records for a long time to come.





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
www.georgialibraries.org
www.georgialibraries.org/pines



From: Open-ils-general 
[mailto:open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Dan 
Scott
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 10:57 AM
To: Evergreen Discussion Group
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Duplicate entry in authors.tt2 (is this bug 
958954?)



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> 
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
404.235.7201, fax
ehardy at georgialibraries.org
www.georgialibraries.org
www.georgialibraries.org/pines



From: Open-ils-general 
[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/20150529/a200b686/attachment.html>