[yul-naco] FW: PCC Relationship Designator Guidelines

[Arakawa, Steven]

OK, PCC has now posted the official guidelines for use of relationship designators (on bibliographic records)
Noteworthy quotes from the guidelines for RDA Appendix I
"Include a relationship designator for all creators, whether they are coded MARC 1XX or MARC 7XX. "
"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. " [But PCC prefers a term from RDA, of course]
"PCC highly encourages including relationship designators for all access points whenever it is clear what the relationship is."
"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."

>From the guidelines for Appendix J.

"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." [So, change in PCC practice for analytic added entries]

Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation
Catalog & Metada Services
Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University
P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240
(203) 432-8286 steven.arakawa at yale.edu<mailto:steven.arakawa at yale.edu>



From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV] On Behalf Of Philip Schreur
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:22 PM
To: PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV
Subject: PCC Relationship Designator Guidelines

Everyone,

I think that I've rarely sent out such a timely message.  There have been many questions lately about relationship designator best practices.  PCC has been hard at work developing our initial set of guidelines and I am extremely pleased to be able to distribute them today.  As you know, these guidelines were developed from the impressive report sent out to you earlier: PCC Relationship Designator Guidelines Task Group Report.  The TG, chaired by Chew Chiat Naun (membership: Paige Andrew, Eileen Dewitya, Linda Gabel, Kate Harcourt, Beth Iseminger, Christee Pascale, Dave Reser and Katia Strieck), produced a thoughtful report filled with many recommendations, additional questions, and some initial guidelines.

That report has been vetted with you.  Based on your responses, the TG produced a revised and final report.  Then, from that report, we have created this set of initial guidelines.  Kate Harcourt has done an amazing job in pulling them together and I thank her heartily!  These new guidelines were vetted at OpCo and PoCo has been busy making some final adjustments.

I'd like to stress here that these are initial guidelines.  We are still gaining experience with our new model and we should feel free to revise our documentation in an agile manner as best practices become more apparent.  This is a great milestone for us and could not come at a better time.  My sincere thanks to all that have made this possible!

Philip

Guidelines:


http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/PCC%20RDA%20guidelines/Relat-Desig-Guidelines.docx
Final Report:


http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/RDA%20Task%20groups%20and%20charges/PCC-Relat-Desig-TG-report.rtf





--

Philip E. Schreur

Chair, Program for Cooperative Cataloging

Head, Metadata Department

Stanford University

650-723-2454

650-725-1120 (fax)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/pipermail/yul-naco/attachments/20130521/0e835e44/attachment-0001.html