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

[Sarah Childs]

In response to Dan's points

a) Yes.
b) Yes.
c) I think this is a discussion issue as well. I would prefer using no
terms at all when there is no term or code, because it's not possible to
sufficiently determine the relationship of the person to the work.  A 700
field in a book record could be for an added author, an illustrator, an
editor, a preface author, etc.  For media, the possibilities are equally
varied or even moreso.  I think if no information is supplied in the
record, we shouldn't try to supply a descriptor. Just give the name. It's
frequently explained in notes or the 245.
d) Yes. This but this situation would be fairly rare, so I think it's the
least pressing issue. I'm fine with giving subfield 4 precedence.
e) Haven't noticed anything in this area, but it would be wise to look into
it and resolve if needed.


The terms in RDA are controlled-ish.  There is a list of terms to be used,
but catalogers can supply their own if none in the list are considered
appropriate.


On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Dan Scott <dan at coffeecode.net> 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> 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)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Sarah Childs
Technical Services Department Head
Hussey-Mayfield Memorial Public Library
250 North Fifth Street
Zionsville, IN 46077
317-873-3149 x13330
sarahc at zionsvillelibrary.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-general/attachments/20150529/d0f7c100/attachment.html>