Module 5: Relationships So far we’ve been talking only about core elements that identify entities. This module is about bibliographic relationships. Because only a few of the relationships are LC core elements, this module is comparatively short, but do not assume that relationships aren’t important or that there aren’t many relationships. Both would be incorrect assumptions. Relationships are an important part of RDA; remember in module 1 we discussed how the two basic goals in the structure of RDA are to identify and relate (from the FRBR/FRAD user tasks and the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles). Expressing relationships in bibliographic and authority records help users find what they want. The decision to include relationships other than those identified as core elements will be cataloger’s judgment. You will want to investigate what other relationships are possible in the various RDA chapters cited in this module, and decide which relationships you think are important to help users find the specific resource or entity you’re identifying. -- in bibliographic records and in authority records Library of Congress RDA Preconference for MLA/DLA May 4, 2011

Relationships: two parts The entities being related Work, expression, manifestation, item, person, family, corporate body, etc. Identified by the authorized access point or identifier or description The type of relationship Identified by a relationship designator Relationships really consist of two parts: There are the entities being related – and what do we mean by entities? – the work, expression, manifestation, item, person, corporate body, family, and so on – the FRBR entities. Entities can be identified by their authorized access point (what we used to call heading) or and identifier, such as an LCCN or an ISBN or URI (universal resource identifier). But the other part of a relationship is stating the type of relationship, and we do this with a relationship designator – For example, a term or code that says what the relationship is, or what role a person, corporate body, or family plays with respect to a particular work or expression or manifestation or item. RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May 2011 - Module 5

Relationships Person Work Shakespeare Hamlet created was created by Remember this picture of Entities and relationships? We usually identify the entities by their authorized access points and the relationship through a relationship designator. Shakespeare Hamlet RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May 2011 - Module 5 3 3 3

Appendix I lists the “relationship designators” or roles played by the persons, families, and corporate bodies associated with Works, Expressions, Manifestations, and Items. These terms are also on the RDA Registry and included in the MARC format – more about that in a minute…. The list of terms for relationship designators in RDA can be used at a general level or a specific level, depending on the application. For example, we could just identify “creator” as the role or we could have our schema identify that automatically by declaring a creator element, as RDA does, or we could go to a more specific level to identify what type of creator – such as an artist, a composer, and author, and so on. In the MARC format we can add a subfield e for the relator term to a field for a person, family, or corporate body to show this, or it also could be indicated in MARC with a code in $4 (relator code). RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May 2011 - Module 5

Core relationships previously discussed The entity related to naming the work: Creator (RDA 19.2) Two entities covered by naming the work or expression: Work manifested (RDA 17.8) Expression manifested (RDA 17.10) We have already covered three RDA relationships: - in module 3 on naming the work we covered the relationship to the creator when naming the work; and - two other entities, were the work manifested and the expression manifested, which are already in the MARC record as the authorized access point naming the single or first work/expression in the resource. In MARC this information is doing double duty to name the entities and to identify the relationship as between the manifestation being described and the work and expression that are contained. RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May 2011 - Module 5

Other entities in relationships Contributors (ch. 20) Related works (ch. 25) Related expressions (ch. 26) Related manifestations (ch. 27) Related items (ch. 28) Related persons (ch. 30) Related families (ch. 31) Related corporate bodies (ch. 32) The categories of entities in relationships covered in this module are listed here. But not all of the relationships shown here will be considered essential or core. RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May 2011 - Module 5

Contributor (RDA 20.2) A person, family, or corporate body associated with an expression, e.g., Translators Editors of compilations Performers Illustrators Arrangers of music Compilers Contributors are those persons, families, or corporate bodies that are associated with expressions. More specific roles or as RDA calls them, “relationship designators” for contributors at the expression level include editors of compilations, translators, performers, illustrators, arrangers of music, compilers, writers of added commentary, and so on. RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May 2011 - Module 5

Relationship for contributors Give as authorized access point in MARC 7XX fields in bibliographic record Relationship designators from RDA appendix I in subfield $e of 7XX field Not a closed list Do not include $e in name authority record In the MARC format, we code the related entities as authorized access points in MARC 7XX fields in the bibliographic record. For example, if the contributor is an illustrator, we give that relationship designator as a term from RDA’s appendix I in subfield $e of the 7XX field. This is not a closed list of terms, but the JSC hopes to keep it controlled, so if you want to add a term, you can officially recommend it to the JSC through the ALA representative to the JSC. Notice that you would not normally include these relationship designators in authority records, as they apply to the resource you are cataloging in the bib record. You will want to apply cataloger’s judgment to use the relationship designator for any contributor you add to a bibliographic record. RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May 2011 - Module 5

Example: contributor 100 1# $a Wood, Audrey. 245 14 $a The napping house / $c Audrey Wood ; illustrated by Don Wood. 700 1# $a Wood, Don, $e illustrator. Notes: 1) Relationship designator “author” could be given for creator in 100 field. 2) 2nd statement of responsibility is not core; also, it isn’t needed to justify the 700 field. This example shows the contributor, Don Wood, with subfield $e to represent the relationship to the expression that is embodied in this manifestation that we are describing. That access point doesn’t need to be justified by including the 2nd statement of responsibility (illustrated by Don Wood) as shown in the example. In fact that second statement of responsibility is not “core” in RDA, so can be omitted, while still keeping. RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May 2011 - Module 5

Example: contributor 100 1# $a Lindgren, Astrid, $d 1907-2002, $e author. 240 10 $a Pippi Långstrump. $l English 245 10 $a Pippi Longstocking / $c Astrid Lindgren ; translated by Tiina Nunnally. 700 1# $a Nunnally, Tiina, $d 1952- $e translator. Here’s an example for a translator. The decision about whether or not to include the relationship designators in subfield $e of the 100 and 700 fields is cataloger’s judgment. Any questions about contributors? Notes: 1) Relationship designators “author” and “translator” could be given -- cataloger judgment. 2) 2nd statement of responsibility is not core; also, it isn’t needed to justify the 700 field. RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May 2011 - Module 5

Cataloging Rules Cut-Off Point Family of Works Equivalent Derivative Descriptive Free Translation Review Microform Reproduction Edition Casebook Summary Abstract Dramatization Simultaneous “Publication” Abridged Edition Digest Criticism Novelization Screenplay Copy Libretto Illustrated Edition Evaluation Revision Change of Genre Exact Reproduction Parody Translation Annotated Edition Expurgated Edition Imitation You may remember this picture from Module 1 – if shows content relationships among works and expressions and manifestations in broad categories: equivalent content, derivative content, and descriptive content. Same Style or Thematic Content Variations or Versions Facsimile Arrangement Commentary Slight Modification Reprint Adaptation Original Work - Same Expression Same Work – New Expression New Work Cataloging Rules Cut-Off Point 11

Relationships Inherent among the Group 1 entities Work Inherent among the Group 1 entities Content relationships among works/expressions Structural relationships Expression Manifestation Item Whole-Part And this slide from module 1 shows other kinds of inherent and structural relationships, like whole/part, sequential, and accompanying relationships. Sequential Derivative Accompanying 12 RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May 2011 - Module 5 12

Related work (RDA 25.1) Common work relationships: Whole-part, e.g., Works in a compilation Chapters in a book Adaptations Supplements Sequential relationships (e.g., earlier and later serials) Chapter 25 of RDA addresses the relationship between a work and other works: whole-part relationships, derivative relationships like adaptations, parodies, accompanying relationships like supplements, and sequential relationships like earlier/later serials, etc. RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May 2011 - Module 5

Relationship: related work Three methods (RDA 24.4) Identifier (not used alone in RDA Test) Authorized access point Description (structured or unstructured) Cataloger judgment to use relationship designators in RDA appendix J.2; MARC content designation indicates some relationships There are three RDA possibilities for expressing the relationship between works: an identifier (not used by itself in the RDA Test), an authorized access point, and either a structured or unstructured description. What’s an identifier? URI, LCCN, OCLC record no., ISBN, ISSN, etc. What’s an authorized access point? What we used to call an authorized heading. What do we mean by a structured description? A description where we indicate the elements – using ISBD punctuation or MARC tagging - : Reprint of: Venice / by Cecil Roth. — Philadelphia : The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1930. — (Jewish communities series) Or a structured Contents note with subfields for the authors, titles, etc. What’s an unstructured description? Notes where we use narrative rather than a formal tagged structure to describe the relationship – e.g., a note that says: Activities are based on the book How the brain learns, by David A. Sousa, 3rd edition, 2006 Or: Reprint of the revised and updated edition published in 1971 by Farrar, Straus & Giroux Whether to use an authorized access point or a description or both is cataloger’s judgment. The relationship designators, for this category are in RDA appendix J.2. Many of them are in hierarchies for more specificity. Things like……”based on (work)”. Catalogers can assign another term if the needed term is not in the appendix. Because some MARC content designation already indicates the relationship, a designator term may not always be needed, for example…..the 780 and 785 indicators in the MARC format are intended to be used to display the relationship designators, such as “Continues” “Continued by” as shown with indicators. RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May 2011 - Module 5

Whole-part relationships: LC policies for the Test No limit on number of works, unless burdensome, in MARC 505 contents note Cataloger’s judgment for number of MARC 7XX analytical authorized access points if that is the method used to give the relationship Don’t need to justify the 7XX analytical access points by a 505 field RDA leaves it to cataloger’s judgment to decide the number of works in a MARC 505 contents note and the total number of analytical authorized access points in 7XX fields. The 505 field isn’t required to justify the authorized access points. It has been shown in other studies that users really like having the contents information, so catalogers should try to include them unless a contents note would be extremely long. RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May 2011 - Module 5

Whole-part work example Authorized access points for the works: 100 1# $a Shakespeare, William, $d 1564-1616. 245 10 $a Hamlet ; $b King Lear / $c William Shakespeare. *700 12 $a Shakespeare, William, $d 1564-1616. $t Hamlet. $t King Lear. In this example authorized access points are used to represent the relationship between the parts to the whole. Because the second indicator identifies the relationship (the 2 = analytical entry), a relationship designator from appendix J wouldn’t be necessary in the 700 fields. * 2nd indicator in 700 indicates the relationship “Contains” RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May 2011 - Module 5

Example: serial related works Structured descriptions and three identifiers each: 245 00 $a TCA journal. 785 00 $t Journal of professional counseling, practice, theory, & research $x 1556- 6382 $w (DLC) 2005205756 $w (OCoLC) 55891574 245 00 $a Journal of professional counseling, practice, theory, & research. 780 00 $t TCA journal $x 1556-4223 $w (DLC) 93645762 $w (OCoLC) 26906768 In this example of a title change of a serial, a structured description also containing three identifiers is used to show the relationship between the earlier and later serial. 785 indicators 00 = relationship “Continued by” 780 indicators 00 = relationship “Continues” RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May 2011 - Module 5

Related expression (RDA 26.1) Common expression relationships: Whole-part (e.g., translations in a compilation) Revisions Editions Translations Language editions Abridgements Chapter 26 addresses the relationship between an expression and other expressions, which includes derivative relationships, like revisions, editions, translations, abridgements, and so on. RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May 2011 - Module 5

Relationship: related expression Three methods (RDA 24.4) Identifier (not used alone in US RDA Test) Authorized access point Description (structured or unstructured) Cataloger judgment to use relationship designators in RDA appendix J.3; MARC content designation gives some relationships The same three RDA possibilities for expressing the relationship between works exist for relationships between expressions with the same guidance: an identifier (not used by itself in the RDA Test), an authorized access point, and either a structured or unstructured description. Whether to use an authorized access point or a description or both is cataloger’s judgment. The relationship designators, for this category are in RDA appendix J.3; many of them are in hierarchies for more specificity. As with the other relationships designators for works and expressions, catalogers can assign another term if the needed term is not in the appendix. And as mentioned before, because some MARC content designation already indicates the relationship, a designator may not always be necessary. RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May 2011 - Module 5

Whole-part expression example Authorized access points for the expressions: 100 1# $a Petterson, Per, $d 1952- 245 10 $a Two Norwegian novels / $c Per Petterson. 700 12 $a Petterson, Per, $d 1952- $t Ut og stjæle hester. $l English. 700 12 $a Petterson, Per, $d 1952- $t Til Sibir. $l English. In this example authorized access points are used to represent the relationship between the parts to the whole. The second indicator identifies the relationship (as being an analytical entry). A 505 contents note could have been included as well but is not required. Could also include a contents note but not required to justify the access points; or, a contents note without the 700 fields would be possible: 505 0# $a Out stealing horses -- To Siberia. RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May 2011 - Module 5

Example: serial related expression Unstructured description for other language edition: 130 0# $a Revista de política y derecho ambientales en América Latina y el Caribe. $l English. 245 10 $a Journal of environmental policy and law in Latin America and the Caribbean. 580 ## $a Issued also in Spanish under title: Revista de política y derecho Caribe. Language editions are related expressions. In this example of a serial, an unstructured description in field 580 is used to give the relationship. The reciprocal relationship would be given in the bibliographic record for the Spanish edition. RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May 2011 - Module 5

Related expression - translation (example 1) Authorized access point: 100 1# $a Brown, Dan, $d 1964- 240 10 $a Digital fortress. $l French 245 10 $a Forteresse digitale. 700 1# $a Translation of: $a Brown, Dan, $d 1964- $t Digital fortress. The expression-level relationship for a translation is not a required. But this slide and those following are included to illustrate the range of possibilities available when including other relationships. The authorized access point shows the relationship between the translation being cataloged and the original; the relationship designator from appendix J is in subfield $i (translation of). RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May 2011 - Module 5

Related expression - translation (example 2) Structured description in 500 field: 100 1# $a Brown, Dan, $d 1964- 240 10 $a Digital fortress. $l French 245 10 $a Forteresse digitale. 500 ## $a Translation of: Digital fortress / Dan Brown. -- 1st ed. -- New York : St. Martin’s Press, 1998. -- 371 pages ; 22 cm. This example illustrates the use of a structured description using a note; the 500 field begins with the appendix J relationship designator and then contains the elements of a description in an ISBD display format with each element separated by ISBD punctuation. RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May 2011 - Module 5

Related expression - translation (example 3) Structured description in 765 field: 100 1# $a Brown, Dan, $d 1964- 240 10 $a Digital fortress. $l French 245 10 $a Forteresse digitale. *765 0# $a Brown, Dan, 1964- $t Digital fortress $b 1st ed. $d New York : St. Martin’s Press, 1998. $h 371 pages ; 22 cm $w (DLC) 9703318 The same descriptive information on the previous slide could be given with subfield coding in a 765 field. Subfield $i isn’t used in a 765 field because a 2nd indicator of blank identifies the relationship (blank = “translation of”). * 2nd indicator “blank” = “Translation of” RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May 2011 - Module 5

Related expression - translation (example 4) Unstructured description in 500 field: 100 1# $a Brown, Dan, $d 1964- 240 10 $a Digital fortress. $l French 245 10 $a Forteresse digitale. 500 ## $a Translation of the author’s novel Digital fortress. The last possible method for giving the relationship is an unstructured description in a simple 500 note that has not been structured with specific tagging. RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May 2011 - Module 5

Related manifestation (RDA 27.1) Common manifestation relationships: Reproductions Different formats for same expression (e.g., book vs. CD; book vs. PDF) Special issues Two methods (RDA 24.4) Identifier (not used alone in RDA Test) Description (structured or unstructured) Cataloger judgment to use relationship designators in RDA appendix J. 4 Chapter 27 addresses the relationship between a manifestation and other manifestations: reproductions, different formats, special issues, inserts, etc. Here again we can use an identifier and/or a structured or unstructured description to show the relationship. But notice that an authorized access point is not one of the methods available to give relationships to other manifestations. This is something that could change in the future. You should apply cataloger’s judgment about including other manifestation relationships in bibliographic records and using relationship designators that are found in Appendix J.4 of RDA. RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May 2011 - Module 5

Related item (RDA 28.1) Common item relationships Reproduction of a specific copy “Bound with” Item added to copy of manifestation in a special collection Two methods (RDA 24.4) Identifier (not used alone in RDA Test) Description (structured or unstructured) Cataloger judgment to use relationship designators in RDA appendix J.5 Chapter 28 addresses the relationship between an item and other items, such as reproductions of a specific copy of a manifestation, bound withs, items added to an individual copy of a manifestation in a special collection, etc. As we noticed for manifestations, an authorized access point is not one of the methods available to give relationships to other manifestations. You can apply cataloger’s judgment about including other item relationships in bibliographic records and using relationship designators. RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May 2011 - Module 5

Related persons, families, and/or corporate bodies Relationship recorded in authority record in 5XX field Can also give relationship designator from RDA appendix K in subfield $i to identify specific relationship Some relationships in MARC indicated by values in subfield $w (e.g., “a” and “b” for earlier and later corporate bodies) -- cataloger judgment or library policy to use in lieu of subfield $i RDA includes chapters and appendices to show relationships between persons, families, and corporate bodies. These would be included in an authority record as an extension of the 5XX field. You could also include the relationship designator from Appendix K in the MARC subfield $i to specify what the relationship is. For corporate bodies, MARC has $w with the codes a and b to show earlier and later corporate bodies and it would be cataloger’s judgment or a library’s policy to use the $w in lieu of the subfield $i. RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May 2011 - Module 5

Examples: person related to corporate body or family 100 1# $a Garr, Arnold K. 510 2# $w r $i Employer: $a Brigham Young University 100 1# $a Carroll, Charles N. $q (Charles Nagus), $d 1817-1902 500 3# $w r $i Descendants: $a Carroll (Family : $g Carroll, Charles N. (Charles Negus), 1817-1902) Here we have a couple of examples of persons with related corporate bodies and related families. Remember these are in the authority records – using $i in the 510 field to show a related corporate body and the second example shows a related family in the 500 field with first indicator 3. RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May 2011 - Module 5

Examples: related corporate bodies 110 2# $a Library of Congress. $b Policy and Standards Division 510 2# $w r $i Predecessor: $a Library of Congress. $b Cataloging Policy and Support Office 110 2# $a Library of Congress. $b Cataloging Policy and Support Office 510 2# $w r $i Successor: $a Library of Congress. $b Policy and Standards Division Here we have the earlier / later relationship for two corporate names, with the specific relationship indicated in the $i. Or we could also give the specific relationship… RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May 2011 - Module 5

Examples: related corporate bodies Giving specific relationship in $w: 110 2# $a Library of Congress. $b Policy and Standards Division 510 2# $w a $a Library of Congress. $b Cataloging Policy and Support Office 110 2# $a Library of Congress. $b Cataloging Policy and Support Office 510 2# $w b $a Library of Congress. $b Policy and Standards Division In just the $w – using the codes a for earlier and b for later name. RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May 2011 - Module 5

Review “Relate”: second main task of RDA (first = identify) Relationships within and between FRBR Group 1 and Group 2 entities Relationship designators in appendices I, J, and K Questions? And that’s it for relationships. Remember that “relate” is one of the main user tasks in RDA – coming from FRAD and that we can show the relationships between work, between expressions, between manifestations, between items – those are the FRBR Group 1 entities; and we can show the relationships between persons, between corporate bodies, and between families – those are the FRBR Group 2 entities. And we can also show the relationships across entity types, such as between a work and a person, between an expression and a corporate body, between a person and a corporate body, and so on. RDA provides terms to use for the relationship designators in Appendices I, J, and K, and those lists of terms are NOT closed lists. Are there any questions about the relationships included in this module? RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May 2011 - Module 5