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

[Hardy, Elaine]

a) Yes

b) Yes

c) I agree with Sarah – if neither subfield is present, then the name should 
display with no terms. There is no one term to rule them all here.

d) See earlier post. I also think it would be a rare occurrence; but I 
prefer to plan for it in case LC decides to add both in the future.

e) Agree with Sarah here as well.



I like the term controlled-ish. Describes RDA in a lot of places. The list 
at http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html is pretty comprehensive 
but does probably leave something  out.



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: Friday, May 29, 2015 1:40 PM
To: Evergreen Discussion Group
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Duplicate entry in authors.tt2 (is this bug 
958954?)



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/c3eba210/attachment-0001.html>