1. LC Training for RDA: Resource Description & Access
Welcome to this module on RDA relationships. Again we are using LC’s training materials, adjusted for UCSD.
There are handouts in your binders.
There are four units in today’s session, and we will take a break after Unit 2.
This is an overview of how relationships are handled in RDA, and basically covers the entire second half of RDA.
For complete information you’ll want to consult the relevant chapters in the RDA Toolkit and the links to LC-PCC Policy Statements. In many ways, looking at RDA itself is simpler than this training session, so I highly encourage you to take the time to browse through these sections of RDA.
This is also an area that is changing rapidly. The PCC (whose practices we largely follow) has proposed some different practices from the Library of Congress. I have adjusted this presentation to make it more PCC- and UCSD-centric rather than LC-centric. But Library of Congress is now reconsidering its policies, so in the future we may see some adjustment from both sides. If there are changes in the future, they will be communicated through the Unit Heads.
Relationships in RDA
-- in bibliographic records and
in authority records
Cooperative and Instructional Programs Division
Library of Congress
Sept. 2012

2. Learning Objectives for Module 4 -- Relationships in RDA
Understand the basics of relationships in RDA
Determine the relationships that we will code here at UCSD
Express relationships correctly in bibliographic records
Here are the learning objectives for today’s module:
Understand the basics of relationships in RDA
Determine the relationships that we will code here at UCSD
Express relationships correctly in bibliographic records

3. Outline for today Introduction: Basics of relationships in RDA
Relationships between People and Resources
Relationships within Resources: works, expressions, manifestations, items
Relationships within People: persons, families and corporate bodies
The module is broken into four units.
A general introduction: Basics of relationships in RDA
Then we’ll talk about three specific types of relationships described in RDA:
Relationships between People and Resources
Relationships within Resources: works, expressions, manifestations, items
Relationships we can identify within People: persons, families and corporate bodies

4. Basics of relationships
1. What are relationships?
2. Why relationships?
Expressing Relationships:
Helps users find what they want!
Relationships are the associations between the entities that we identify in our cataloging--the people, corporate bodies, and resources.
We are familiar with the fact that
authors have a relationship to the literary works they have written
composers have a relationship to the musical works they create
And that we express relationships with linking fields when a serial changes its title, or when we want to link print and online manifestations.
Why is it important to express relationships is our catalogs? Expressing relationships helps users find what they need.
The two basic goals in the structure of RDA are to identify and relate. (This is from the FRBR/FRAD user tasks and the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles.)
The first goal is to identify attributes or characteristics of works, expressions, manifestations, items, persons, corporate bodies, and families. This was discussed in modules 1 and 2. This module provides an overview of the second goal: relating entities.
Relationships play a much more prominent role in the structure of RDA. Expressing relationships in bibliographic and authority records helps users find what they want and tell users about other available resources. They provide context. We show users the pathways to related materials. We need to reflect important relationships in our catalogs and resource discovery systems.

5. Basics of relationships
Entity – relationship – Entity
“Name” is the creator of “Work”
“Adolfo Tarango” is the creator of “Developing and Managing Electronic Journal Collections”
“Work” is a commentary on “Work”
“There is nothing like a Dane!” is a commentary on “Hamlet”
“Corporate Name A” is the earlier name of “Corporate Name B”
“Center for Music Experiment” is the earlier name of “Center for Computing and the Arts”
Two entities are joined by a relationship, as you can see on this diagram.
We see many possibilities in RDA through the Group 1 and Group 2 entities.
For example, “Adolfo Tarango” is the creator of the work “Developing and Managing Electronic Journal Collections.” (Person to Work relationship)
“There is nothing like a Dane!” is a commentary on the work “Hamlet.” (Work to Work relationship)
“Center for Music Experiment” is the earlier name of “Center for Computing and the Arts.” (Corporate body name relationship)
In RDA, entities can be identified by
their authorized access point (what we used to call a heading) or
an identifier, such as an ISSN or an ISBN or URI (universal resource identifier) or
a description (note).
The type of relationship is described in blue in these examples.
We indicate relationships with a relationship designator, which is a term 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.

6. RDA 18.1.6 Relationship Designator
The term relationship designator refers to a designator that indicates the nature of the relationship between a resource and a person, family, or corporate body associated with that resource represented by an authorized access point and/or identifier.
Here is the official definition from RDA :
The term relationship designator refers to a designator that indicates the nature of the relationship between a resource and a person, family, or corporate body associated with that resource represented by an authorized access point and/or identifier.

7. Entities being related
Relationships between:
Resources and associated persons, families, and corporate bodies
[Shi Deng is the author of Glossary of Library and Information Science, English-Chinese, Chinese-English]
2. Resources (works, expressions, manifestations, items)
[The Daily Guardian is the earlier name of the UCSD Guardian]
3. Persons, families, corporate bodies
[Charles Lutwidge Dodgson also published under the identity Lewis Carroll]
This unit is a general introduction to FRBR relationships in RDA and how they are expressed in the catalog records you create. We will discuss three sets of relationships:
Relationships between:
FRBR Group 2 entities and Group 1 entities, that is
Persons, Families, and Corporate Bodies and how these entities relate to a resource (Works, Expressions, Manifestations, Items).
Relationships between entities in Group 1:
Works, Expressions, Manifestations, Items: how these entities relate to each other
And relationships between entities in Group 2 to each other:
Persons, Families, and Corporate Bodies: how these entities relate to each other

8. RDA 18.2 Functional Objectives and Principles
The data recorded to reflect relationships … should enable the user to find all resources associated with a particular person, family, or corporate body.
… the data should reflect all significant relationships between a resource and persons, families, and corporate bodies associated with that resource.
Why are we doing this at all? Using relationship designators supports the “find” objective.
In order to do this, catalogers are instructed to record all significant relationships. (Here it says between Group 1 and Group 2 entities, but this is more broadly generalized elsewhere in RDA.)

9. Relationships in RDA Chapters 18-22, Appendix I
Resource and associated persons, families, corporate bodies
Chapters 24-28, Appendix J
Between resources (works, expressions, manifestations, items)
Chapters 29-32, Appendix K
Between persons, families, corporate bodies
Where is this information in RDA? This slide gives an outline.
For relationships between Resources and Persons/Families/Corporate Bodies, see Chapters 18-22, and Appendix I.
Note: Chapter 23 General guidelines on recording the subject of a work has not been written yet.
For relationships between resources, see Chapters and Appendix J.
Et cetera.
Just a few comments on these appendices:
Each appendix provides a list of terms. For example, in Appendix I, the list includes the term “author,” which expresses the relationship between the creator of a primarily textual work and the work itself. These terms are only used in bibliographic records, not in authority records.
Appendix J provides the list of terms describing relationships between the WEMI entities. For example the term “adaption” found there is used to express a relationship between a work “based on” a work and the original work. These terms are used in both bibliographic and authority records (“see also” references).
Appendix K provides terms used to describe relationships between persons, families, and corporate bodies. For example the designator “alternate identity” found there relates a pseudonymous or other identity assumed by a person to the person. The designator “real identity” relates the real person to an assumed alternate identity. These terms are used only in name authority records (“see also” references).
In AACR2 and MARC, we are already doing relationship designation in a more limited and different way. Some examples are:
Relator terms ($e) added to headings by rare books catalogers
Relator codes ($4) added to headings by music catalogers
Linking fields (776 fields) added to bibliographic records to connect related works
So this is not a foreign concept; we just need to learn how to do this in RDA.

10. [Screen image from the RDA Toolkit (www. rdatoolkit
[Screen image from the RDA Toolkit ( used by permission
of the Co-Publishers for RDA (American Library Association, Canadian Library
Association, and CILIP: Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals)]
Here is an example from Appendix I:
Appendix I (again) lists the “relationship designators” or roles played by the persons, families, and corporate bodies associated with Works, Expressions, Manifestations, and Items.
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, using chapter 19, we could just identify a “creator” of a work, or, we could use Appendix I for a more specific relationship type for that creator – such as an artist, a composer, an author, and so on.
PCC generally recommends that catalogers use the most specific term, and in general this is what UCSD catalogers should follow. 10

11. Relationship designators
RDA appendices I, J, and K
Not closed lists
If needed term is missing:
Identify the needed term and use it in your bib record
Notify your Unit Head
Unit Head will follow PCC process to have term fast-tracked through the formal JSC process to be added to the appendix and the vocabulary
As I just mentioned, the RDA relationship designators are in three appendices for different categories of relationships. They are not closed lists.
If a term is missing for the relationship you want to give, you are allowed to pick a term yourself. If you need to do this, please notify your Unit Head so they can follow the national process to add the missing term. (This process involves coordination through PCC’s SCS—of which our own Becky Culbertson is the chair—to work with the ALA representative to the JSC to “fast track” the new vocabulary through the process.)
The PCC received a report in October from its Relationship Designator Guidelines Task Group. That group, and PCC itself, affirmed the value and importance of relationship designators.
One comment made by the TG about current MARC codes and RDA relationship designators bears repeating:
“But where MARC captures a relatively limited set of relationships, largely those applicable to traditional library collections, the RDA relationship designators establish a framework to express a potentially much richer set of relationships. In addition, the linked data environment in which RDA relationship designators are intended to be implemented may eventually offer more powerful ways of handling relationships. For example, a future system may be able to recognize dancer as a kind of performer, a hierarchy that is implied in RDA but would not be recognized by most current systems.” 11

12. Methods to express relationships
1. Authorized access point
110 2# $a Society of Linguists, $e author
2. Structured description
$i Also issued as: $t Health statistics
3. Unstructured description
500 ## $a Translation of the author’s novel Digital fortress
There are three methods for expressing relationships in MARC. Choosing the appropriate method partly depends on the category of relationship being expressed.
The first example here describes the relationship between creator and a work in an Authorized Access Point. The method used here is the addition of a $e with a term from Appendix I.
The second method is a structured description--a formatted note such as a linking field. This shows an equivalent manifestation relationship in the 776 field. This technique is often used to relate different formats, such as print and microform, or print and electronic.
The last example shows an unstructured description, like a note.
Because no single method is well suited to all situations, and because pre-RDA practice observes a variety of methods, we cannot prescribe one technique, but we will see that there are some familiar patterns that emerge.

13. Designation of relationships in MARC bibliographic records
$e of and
$j of 111 and 711
$i of
$i of 76X-78X linking entry fields
MARC 21 coding (e.g., “continues”; “continued by”)
MARC fields
Relationship designators use different fields and subfields in the MARC format. Here are some examples as an overview:
To provide the relationship in the authorized access point, use $e designator in and entry fields to show relationships between people and resources, choosing the appropriate term from Appendix I.
For the 111 and 711 fields, use $j for relationship designator because $e is defined as subordinate unit for conferences.
To provide relationships between resources, use $i of 76X-78X linking entry fields.
The MARC 780 and 785 fields themselves are relationship designators– 780 is “continues” and 785 is “continued by” so no further designation is needed here.
The 264 field—the publishing statement—is also itself a relationship designator, as are the 780 and It is listed here because occasionally there are Persons/families/bodies related at the manifestation level to producers, publishers, manufacturers and distributors.

14. Citing another resource: Authorized access points
In MARC fields:
Give the form represented by NAR*
If there is no NAR, create one (NACO catalogers)
This slide is a reminder from LC that in the fields we use the form of name (the authorized access point) from the authority record.
If there is no NAR, create one (for NACO catalogers; follow DCM Z1 guidelines about when to make an NAR)
*Exception: Do not use AACR2 NAR having “Polyglot” or more than one language in subfield $l for multiple expressions. There is more information about this exception for expressions at the end of the PCC-Post-RDA-Test guidelines (at
* Exception: Do not use AACR2 NAR with “Polyglot” or more
than one language in subfield $l for multiple expressions.

15. Citing another resource: Linking entry fields
In MARC fields:
Copy and paste what is in the existing record for that resource and adjust the subfield coding as appropriate
In MARC fields
Copy and paste what is in the existing record for that resource and adjust the subfield coding as appropriate. There are further instructions in the MARC documentation.

16. Designation of relationships in MARC authority records
In authority records, relationships are shown in:
500 $w and 663
510 $w
Optional relationships can be added in 5XX $w r $i (more on this later)
A few moments ago, I described adding a $e to bibliographic records, specifically for creator. Note that the $e is NEVER used in authority records.
This slide reminds us that there is some relationship designation within authority records through $w. $W describes that earlier and later names of corporate bodies, and the 663 field describes complex relationships. New with RDA is the possibility of encoding optional relationships through a new method of coding $w paired with $i. You will see more about this later.

17. Summary You have been recording relationships in AACR2
There are some new concepts about relating entities in RDA
Relationships are recorded as authorized access points, notes, and linking fields
UCSD follows PCC practices
So, to summarize, and this ends Unit 1 of our 4 units today:
You have already been recording relationships in AACR2, so this in nothing new, but there are some new tools for doing this
But there are some new concepts about relating entities in RDA
Relationships are recorded as authorized access points, notes, and linking entry fields
UCSD follows PCC practices.

18. Persons/families/bodies and resources
Creators and others associated with works (ch. 19)
Contributors associated with expressions (ch. 20)
Manufacturers, publishers, distributors associated with manifestations (ch. 21)
Owners, annotator, autographer, etc. associated with items (ch. 22)
We are now moving on to Unit 2, which will focus on the relationship between Group 1 and Group 2 entities.
These relationships are expressed in bibliographic records.
The slide tells you the four RDA chapters that correspond to the relationships Group 2 entities (persons, families, corporate bodies) can have with bibliographic resources
Creators and others associated with works (ch. 19) -
Contributors associated with expressions (ch. 20)
Entities related to manifestations (ch. 21)
Entities related to items (ch. 22) 18

19. Creator relationships
Persons/families/bodies related to works
author
compiler
filmmaker
interviewer
programmer
and others … (RDA Appendix I)
We will start with Chapter 19 and talk about the Creator relationship with Works.
Persons, families and corporate bodies related to works include authors, compilers, filmmakers, interviewers, programmers, and others identified in Appendix I.
The creator relationship is expressed in the 1XX field for the single or first creator, with other creators given in 7XX fields.
PCC guidelines currently state that the relationship designator (in $e) is mandatory for all creators. Note that there are generic and specific terms; the PCC guideline is generally to provide the most specific term.
Subfield $e is allowed both in 1XX and 7XX fields. If there is more than one creator of a work, you may provide additional creators in the 7XX fields.
The recommendation of the PCC Task Group is to use the RDA relationship designator
INSTEAD of the AACR2 $e (which wasn’t a controlled vocabulary) and
INSTEAD of the $4 relator code (which our music catalogers use).
This is a big change. We will need to talk about retrospective coding of our legacy records.
The list in appendix I.2 is not closed; if you need another term, you can choose an appropriate term. As I mentioned before, if you do this, please let your Unit Head know so they are submit the term through the national process for getting the term added to the appendix.
And, another reminder: if you create authority records, do not include that term in the 1XX of the authority record. (This is the same as we have been doing.)

20. Creator relationships (con’t)
LC catalogers will (according to LC-PCC PS 19.2):
Give first creator with principal responsibility (1xx field)
If multiple creators associated with the work are present, apply cataloger judgment to give more than the first (7xx fields)
UCSD catalogers will follow the same practice
Also include specific $e with term from Appendix I in both 1xx and 7xx
LC and PCC catalogers currently are instructed to code the first creator with principal responsibility (i.e., the 1xx field).
If multiple creators associated with the work are present, they are allowed to exercise cataloger judgment about whether they include these authorized access points (as 7xx fields) or not.
In general, and within reason, UCSD catalogers should add these authorized access points, which serve users well. This is not different from AACR2 practice.
Regarding the addition of $e with the appropriate relationship designator, the PCC asks for more, proposing that “relationship designators for creators be mandatory where the relevant access points are given.” They go further to recommend that catalogers prefer a specific term to a general one if it is easily determined.
For example, use librettist rather than author for the creator of a libretto. They note that there is a difference between the editor and the editor of a compilation, and between artist and illustrator, so they urge catalogers to be aware of the definitions.
They have recommended that catalogers use these relationship designators INSTEAD OF relator codes. They have even taken this a step further to recommend that, after having RDA training, catalogers apply RDA relationship designators even in AACR2 records, and want further investigation by another task group into automated ways to do this. We will not go this far quite yet, and will stay tuned for the latest developments.

21. Creator relationships in bibliographic records
Give as authorized access point in MARC 1XX field (and 7XX field if more than one creator or if “other” associated with work) in bibliographic record
Relationship designators from RDA appendix I.2 in subfield $e of 1XX and 7XX field
Not a closed list
Do not include $e in name authority record
This slide is largely a review:
The creator relationship is expressed in the 1XX field for the single or first creator with other creators given in 7XX fields.
Relationship designators may be used in subfield $e of those 1XX and 7XX fields.
The list in appendix I.2 is not closed; if you need another term, you can choose an appropriate term. But we will want to add it to the controlled vocabulary, so please inform your Unit Head.
If you create authority records, do not include that $e term in the 1XX of the authority record.

22. Example Creator work relationship
110 $a Society of Linguists, $e author.
710 $a Linguists International, $e author.
Shown here are three examples of creators with the appropriate relationship designators taken from Appendix I.
Two creators are shown with the 110 and the 710.
The other examples show use of other creator relationship designators from Appendix I
100 $a Glass, Philip, $e composer.
110 $a Virginia, $e enacting jurisdiction.

23. Example Others associated with work
Others associated with works (19.3):
710 $a U.S. Geology Society, $e issuing body.
There are roles other than creator associated with works; those relationships are covered in RDA “Other persons, families or corporate bodies associated with a work”
These are examples of common types we might see in conjunction with corporate bodies.
710 $a ABC Institute, $e sponsoring body. 23 23

24. Contributor relationships
Persons/families/bodies related to expressions
Translators
Editors of compilations
Performers
Illustrators
Arrangers of music
Compilers
One frequently-occurring relationship is for contributors. Contributors are those persons, families, or corporate bodies that are associated with expressions.
These relationship designators may prove even more important to users than those of creators, because of their wide variety of roles: as translators, editors of compilations, performers, illustrators, arrangers of music, and so on.
The rules for Contributors are found in RDA 20.2. 24

25. Contributor relationships (cont.)
LC catalogers:
Give the first illustrator of resources intended for children as an authorized access point in a MARC 7XX field in bibliographic record, and add the relationship designator $e illustrator
UCSD catalogers:
Follow broader PCC practice, which strongly encourages coding the $e relationship designator for all contributors
LC has a strict and limited requirement for coding the contributor relationship; LC catalogers are only required to add the access point and the relationship designator for the first illustrator of resources intended for children.
PCC and UCSD would like to be more liberal. If a cataloger chooses to add an authorized access point for a contributor (for example, an editor, translator, arranger, performer, etc.), PCC practice is to strongly encourage adding the relationship designator.
As you all know, in the MARC format, we code contributors as authorized access points in MARC 7XX fields in the bibliographic record.
And, as a reminder, do not include the relationship designators in authority records, as they apply only to the resource you are cataloging in the bib record. 25

26. Example 1: Contributor relationships
100 1# $a Wood, Audrey, $e author
$a The napping house / $c Audrey Wood
; illustrated by Don Wood.
700 1# $a Wood, Don, $e illustrator.
This is an example of an expression level relationship.
This example shows the illustrator-contributor, Don Wood, with $e representing the relationship to the expression that is embodied in this manifestation that we are describing.
His 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 the 700 field.
What LC wants us to learn from this example is:
To note the relationship designator “author” in the 100 field
The second statement of responsibility is not required at LC; also, it isn’t needed to justify the 700 field. However, it makes the relationship very clear, and UCSD catalogers likely will continue this practice from AACR2.
3) LC policy is to give $e illustrator in this 700 field; it is our policy too (plus to give relationship designators for other contributors) 26

27. Example 2: Contributor relationships
100 1# $a Lindgren, Astrid, $d ,
$e author.
$a Pippi Långstrump. $l English
$a Pippi Longstocking / $c Astrid
Lindgren ; translated by Tiina Nunnally.
700 1# $a Nunnally, Tiina, $d $e
translator.
This slide and the following examples show relationships that are important for certain types of materials. LC will leave coding these to catalogers judgment. PCC practice is to strongly encourage coding them.
Here’s an example for a translator.
Notes:
Relationship designators “author” and “translator” could be given. This is cataloger judgment for LC, but UCSD catalogers will do this.
As a reminder from the previous slide, the second statement of responsibility is not core; also, it isn’t needed to justify the 700 field 27

28. Example 3: Contributor relationships
245 $a Favorite American music / $c performed
by the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra with
Marin Alsop conducting..
505 $a ...
710 $a Baltimore Symphony Orchestra, $e
performer.
700 $a Alsop, Marin, $e conductor.*
This slide shows an example with two contributors to the expression.
Whether to include the 7XX fields at all is, for LC, cataloger judgment; the same is true for including the relationship designators in the 7XX fields.
UCSD catalogers will add these access points and will include relationship designators.
It is an option to use the more general $e performer for Alsop but UCSD will prefer the more specific term.
* Could have used the more general “$e performer” for Alsop.

29. Relationship Designators for Bibliographic Records -- Quiz
RDA Bibliographic Record: 100 1# $a Mishima, Yukio, $d , $e author $a Shiosai. $l English $a The Sound of waves / $c Yukio Mishima; translated by Meredith Weatherby # $a Weatherby, Meredith, $e translator. Authority records: 100 1# $a Mishima, Yukio, $d $t Shiosai. $l English 100 1# $a Weatherby, Meredith
Here is a quick quiz to drive home the difference between coding in bibliographic records and authority records.
Based on the information in this snippet of am RDA bib record, we will create a Name/Title Authority Record for this bibliographic record (expression) and create a NAR for the translator. Please supply MARC tags.
The point of this exercise is to show that we did not carry over the relationship designator from the bib record to either one of the NARs.

30. Open Metadata Registry
metadataregistry.org
I want to digress for a moment to mention the Open Metadata Registry, whose logo and URL are shown here. This registry is where the relationship designator terms (the RDA appendices) are officially registered on the web so that in the future they can become machine-actionable.
What does this mean?
It means that once we are beyond MARC in which words are only text, these terms will become links, through the use of this Registry. It is a formal and technical way to manage a controlled vocabulary.
This is the basic technique for linked data. It will permit establishing more relationships with other data and broader relationships with hierarchical data.
So the RDA Appendices are more than just lists in the RDA Toolkit; they have moved out to the Web.

31. Here is an incomplete snippet from the Registry for some of the terms we’ve been talking about. The column on the right shows the end of the URL that provides the machine definition of that term.

32. Relationships to manifestations
Persons/families/bodies related to manifestations (RDA 21.0, Appendix I.4)
Producers
Publishers (e.g., broadcasters)
Manufacturers (e.g., engravers, printers)
Distributors (e.g., film distributor)
We want to shift now to talk about manifestations.
Relationships at the manifestation level apply to those roles that can change from one manifestation to the other.
Chapter 21 lists Producers, publishers, manufactures, distributors as types of relationships. These are separate elements in RDA and already in your record. So some of the relationships are already taken care of via the 264 field. 32

33. Few terms are listed in Appendix I.4
Relationships designators for persons/families/bodies associated with manifestations
Few terms are listed in Appendix I.4
The terms: “producer,” “publisher,” “manufacturer,” “distributor” are separate elements (264 field) and thus are not given in subfield $e of 7XX field
For relationship designators for persons/families/corporate bodies associated with manifestations, very few terms are listed in Appendix I. Terms that might come to mind, like producer, publisher and manufacturer are not listed there, because the 264 field already describes the relationship through its indicators.

34. Examples: Relationships to manifestations
264 #1 $a Bethesda : $b NIH, $c 2008.
710 2# $a National Institutes of Health (U.S.), $e broadcaster.
Here are two examples of relationships to manifestations.
Broadcaster is a type of publisher, so you see the $e with that term in the first example. The term comes from the appendix for manifestation relationships.
However, for the second example, the 264 #1 means “Publisher” so there is no $e added to the However, LC says that “there are no RDA police who would object if you used a different vocabulary and added a term such as ‘publisher.’”
264 #1 $a St. Paul : $b West Publishing Company, $c 2011-
710 2# $a West Publishing Company.*
* “Publisher” isn’t used as an RDA relationship
designator because that relationship is an element
(264 field).

35. Relationships to items
Persons/families/bodies related to items (RDA 22.0, Appendix I.5)
Owners
Custodians
Curators
LC: cataloger judgment
UCSD: Mostly for gifts and special collections. For now, continue to code as 790 field and use RDA relationship designator in $e
Here are a few of the possible relationships to items.
Remember that this has to be a relationship to only one instance of the manifestation (for example, one copy of a book but not all copies of the book).
For UCSD materials, this is used almost exclusively for gifts and Special Collections materials. For now, we will continue to code these as 790s and will add the RDA relationship designator iin $e. 35

36. Examples: Relationships to items
LC:
500 $a University Library's copy has
ms. notes by author on endpapers.
$5 IaH
700 $a Smiley, Jane, $e annotator
UCSD:
590 $a UCSD copy has ms. notes by author on endpapers.
790 $a Smiley, Jane $e annotator
This example shows a relationship that applies to only one instance of a manifestation. So this is generally considered local information, and thus the 590 and 790 coding for UCSD.

37. Examples: Relationships to items
LC:
541 $c Gift; $a John Jefferson; $d $5 DLC
700 $a Jefferson, John, $e donor.
UCSD:
790 $a Jefferson, John $e donor
Here is another example.
We don’t typically use the 541 as LC does, but very occasionally we do want to tie all the records for a gift or other special collection together with this added entry.

38. Summary
Work:
Code authorized access points for creators and include $e with term from Appendix I
Expression:
Code authorized access points for contributors and include $e with term from Appendix I
Manifestation: Unlikely to be needed; cataloger judgment
Item: For local gifts and special collections
We are at the end of Unit 2—describing relationships between resources and persons, families, and corporate bodies.
To summarize,
For works, UCSD catalogers will code authorized access points for creators and should include a $e with the appropriate, and most specific term from Appendix I
For expressions, UCSD catalogers should code authorized access points for contributors and should include a $e with the appropriate, and most specific term from Appendix I
Relationships between persons and manifestations are unlikely to be needed, so this is a matter of cataloger judgment on those rare occasions
For items, we will use local coding (590s and 790s) for those local gifts as we are instructed by bibliographers or Acquisitions, or by policy for special collections.
We’ll stop here and take a ten minute break… come back at….

39. Relationships between resources
Relationships between works, expressions, manifestations, and items
Relationships in bibliographic and/or authority records:
Related works (ch. 25)
Related expressions (ch. 26)
Related manifestations (ch. 27)
Related items (ch. 28)
Welcome back. We are now in Unit 3 of our 4 units for today,
We will now look at relationships between works, expressions, manifestations and items.
Each Group 1 entity is addressed in a separate relationships chapter: ch 39

40. Related works 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 and parodies
accompanying relationships like supplements
sequential relationships like earlier/later serial titles, and many other serial relationships
See details in LCPS 25.1 40

41. Related works LC catalogers are only required to code (LCPS 25.1):
Whole-part relationships for works in a compilation
Sequential serial relationships
PCC catalogers generally follow LC practice
UCSD catalogers may use cataloger judgment to apply more broadly.
Again, LC catalogers have some fairly strict boundaries about coding relationships between works, only coding whole/part relationships for compilations and relationships for serials.
In general, PCC catalogers follow LC practice, and we should, too. However, if a UCSD cataloger sees a need to code other relationships between works, they are free to do so.

42. Whole-part relationships for compilations
LC: Give MARC 505 contents note unless contents indicated in another part of the description (e.g., in MARC 245 $a because no collective title present) or unless burdensome
LC: Give one MARC 7XX analytical authorized access point; cataloger judgment if additional 7XX fields for other works
Don’t give analytical authorized access points for some works: anthologies of poetry, conference proceedings, hymnals, journals, interviews, etc. – LCPS 25.1
This slide describes LC policy on providing whole-part relationships for compilations. Marilu and Shi will provide more training on compilations on February 27, but this is a quick preview of what LC is doing.
For contents notes: The policy for this generally is to give a MARC 505 contents and at least one 7XX analytical authorized access point. If the contents are already indicated elsewhere in the description (e.g., in the 245 field), a contents note is not necessary; if there are TOO MANY works in the compilation, you can omit the contents note.
For additional analytical authorized access points: LC catalogers are instructed to create one for the predominant or first work in the compilation when it represents a substantial part of a resource (e.g., usually not the introduction or preface).
Detailed information is provided in the LC Policy Statement that accompanied RDA rule 25.1.
PCC catalogers generally follow LC practice; UCSD catalogers can use cataloger judgment and go beyond this if they feel it will serve users well. 42

43. Example: Whole-part work
Authorized access points for the works:
100 1# $a Shakespeare, William, $d
$a Hamlet ; $b King Lear / $c William Shakespeare.
* $a Shakespeare, William, $d $t Hamlet.
* $a Shakespeare, William, $d $t King Lear.
Here is an example, from a bibliographic record, of a compilation with no collective title. The first 700 field meets the LC core requirement and, and LC catalogers are mandated to provide this. The second 700 field is a good thing, and even though it is not required, we are glad that the cataloger saw fit to include this authorized access point.
These 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.
[Animation shows indicators.]
* 2nd indicator in 700 indicates the relationship “Contains” 43

44. Example: serial related works
Structured descriptions and three identifiers each:
$a TCA journal.
$t Journal of professional counseling,
practice, theory, & research $x 1556-
6382 $w (DLC) $w (OCoLC)
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 titles.
The note at the bottom of this slide reminds us that the labels “Continued by” and “Continues” are generated for users from the MARC tags to make the relationships clear.
The top example, TCA journal, shows in its snippet record that it is continued by the later title Journal of professional counseling, practice, theory, and research.
The second box shows the record for the Journal of professional counseling, practice, theory, and research—and that it continues from the earlier title.
$a Journal of professional counseling,
practice, theory, & research.
$t TCA journal $x $w (DLC)
$w (OCoLC)
785 indicators 00 = relationship “Continued by”
780 indicators 00 = relationship “Continues” 44

45. Authority record, work relationship
100 1# $a Chase, Mary, $d $t Harvey
380 ## $a Play
530 #0 $w r $i Adapted as a motion picture (work): $a Harvey (Motion picture)
670 ## $a Harvey, 1950.
670 ## $a Wikipedia, Jan. 6, 2011 $b (Harvey; Pulitzer Prize-winning play by Mary Chase; premiered in 1944)
You will begin to see examples of work relationships like the one in this somewhat “extreme” authority record.
Adding these fields is cataloger’s judgment, not an LC core requirement, but other institutions are creating such authority records, so we will likely start to see them.
This example shows a work to work relationship, between a play and a motion picture.
This is the authority record for the play. You can see the 046 $k for the date of creation of the play, and the 380 field that shows the form of the work. The 530 field shows the relationships with the motion picture. $w is a control field (r indicates that a relationship designator is being given in $i), $i gives the relationship, and $a gives the authorized access point for the motion picture.
An authority record for the motion picture, also exists, and includes a reciprocal 530 showing the relationship to the play.

46. Related expressions RDA 26.1 Common expression relationships:
Whole-part (e.g., translations in a compilation)
Revisions
Editions
Translations
Language editions
Abridgements
Moving from Works to Expressions…
Chapter 26 addresses the relationship between an expression and other expressions, which includes
whole/part relationships and
derivative relationships, such as revisions, editions, translations, and abridgements. 46

47. Related expressions
Like work relationships, LC limits their requirements for relationships between expressions (LC PS 26.1):
Whole-part relationships for expressions in a compilation (same policy as for works)
Sequential serial relationships
Like work relationships, LC limits their requirements for relationships between expressions. The full instructions are found in the LC Policy Statements at This list should look very familiar from the earlier slide about work relationships, because it includes the same two categories: compilations and serials.

48. Example 1: Whole-part expression
Authorized access points for the expressions:
100 1# $a Petterson, Per, $d 1952-
$a Two Norwegian novels / $c Per
Petterson.
505 0# $a Out stealing horses -- To Siberia.
$a Petterson, Per, $d $t Ut og
stjæle hester. $l English.
$a Petterson, Per, $d $t Til
Sibir. $l English.
$a Out stealing horses.
$a To Siberia.
Here is an example of a bib record for two novels, in translation, published together. The work “Two Norwegian novels” (note the collective title) is a compilation of two separate English language expressions of two separate works. There is a contents note to reflect the names of the two novels.
The first 700 field is required for LC catalogers. LC’s guidelines say: Give an analytical authorized access point for the predominant or first expression in the compilation when it represents a substantial part of a resource (e.g., usually not the preface or introduction)
The second 700 field is optional but very helpful. LC’s best advice is to provide both to help user; I think we would all agree that we would want to do this.
In this example authorized access points are used to represent the relationship between the parts to the whole. The second indicator of “2” in the 700 fields identifies the relationship (as being an analytical entry).
The 740's are optional but very helpful and provide additional access points. 48

49. Example 2: serial related expression
Structured description for other language edition:
130 0# $a Revista de política y derecho
ambientales en América Latina y el
Caribe. $l English.
$a Journal of environmental policy
and law in Latin America and the
Caribbean.
$i Issued also in Spanish under
title: $t Revista de política y derecho ambientales en América Latina y el Caribe.
Language editions are related expressions.
In this example of a serial, an structured description in field 775 is used to give the relationship.
The reciprocal relationship would be given in the bibliographic record for the Spanish edition. 49

50. Example 3: Related expression - translation
Authorized access point:
100 1# $a Brown, Dan, $d 1964-
$a Digital fortress. $l French
$a Forteresse digitale.
700 1# $i Translation of: $a Brown, Dan,
$d $t Digital fortress.
Coding an expression-level relationship for a translation is not required in RDA.
But this slide and the three following are included to illustrate the range of possibilities available to describe other relationships. All will use the French translation of Dan Brown’s “Digital Fortress.”
So this first example shows the relationship in an authorized access point, so you can see the 700 field with $i . The relationship designator “Translation of” is taken from Appendix J. The subsequent a and d subfields give some basic information about the English language expression.
This is something that could be included in the bib record if the cataloger deemed it important.
Before I show you the other 3 techniques, you should know that we cannot set policy to instruct you to always use just one approach. Catalogers will need to make that decision based on what they are cataloging. Different techniques are useful for different circumstances. So I will just be showing you the options.
We likely will see all of these approaches on copy, which we will simply accept. There is no need for consistency here. 50

51. Example 4: Related expression - translation
Structured description in 500 field:
100 1# $a Brown, Dan, $d 1964-
$a Digital fortress. $l French
$a Forteresse digitale.
500 ## $a Translation of: Digital fortress /
Dan Brown. -- 1st ed. -- New York :
St. Martin’s Press,
pages ; 22 cm.
This second example illustrates the use of a structured description using a note.
The 500 field begins with that same appendix J relationship designator and then contains the elements of a description in an ISBD display format with each element separated by ISBD punctuation.
This option provides more detail about the manifestation translated. 51

52. Example 5: Related expression - translation
Structured description in 765 field:
100 1# $a Brown, Dan, $d 1964-
$a Digital fortress. $l French
$a Forteresse digitale.
*765 0# $a Brown, Dan, $t Digital
fortress $b 1st ed. $d New York :
St. Martin’s Press, 1998 $h 371
pages ; 22 cm $w (DLC)
The third way you could do this is with a structured description in the 765 field.
The same descriptive information on the previous slide is included here, adding subfields and the LC record number at the end.
Subfield $i (with the relationship designator) isn’t used in a 765 field because the 2nd indicator of blank already identifies the relationship (blank = “translation of”).
This approach provides quite a bit of detail, and is parsed for potential machine-actionability.
* 2nd indicator “blank” = “Translation of” 52

53. Example 6: Related expression - translation
Unstructured description in 500 field:
100 1# $a Brown, Dan, $d 1964-
$a Digital fortress. $l French
$a Forteresse digitale.
500 ## $a Translation of the author’s novel
Digital fortress.
The fourth and last possible method for giving the relationship is an unstructured description in a simple 500 note that has not been structured with specific tagging.
This is probably the technique most familiar to us, and I imagine the one we will most frequently see for the near future.
All of these ways are correct, and the cataloger will need to decide which makes sense as an approach for their specific situation. 53

54. Related manifestations
Common manifestation relationships:
Reproductions
Different formats for same expression (e.g., print vs. CD; print vs. PDF, print vs. online)
Special issues
Required for reproductions; see LC-PCC PS 27.1
Moving on to manifestations…
RDA chapter 27 addresses the relationship between a manifestation and other manifestations: reproductions, different formats such as electronic versions, special issues, inserts, etc.
This area is new and different. May need to put Becky on the spot.
The word “reproduction” is being used in its broadest sense to include all resources formerly identified as reproductions, republications, reprints, reissues, facsimiles, etc., that still represent equivalent content between an original resource and a reproduction of that original. Revised editions represent different expressions and are not treated as reproductions.
LCPS 27.1 54

55. Recording related manifestations
Structured or unstructured description:
Linking entry fields: 775 or 776
5XX
Not by an authorized access point
LC: cataloger judgment to use relationship designators in RDA appendix J.4 in subfield $i if MARC content designation does not give relationship
Here again there are several techniques to show the relationship; we can use a structured or an unstructured description.
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.
UCSD catalogers use the Provider-Neutral technique for electronic reproductions.
LCPS
LC practice: When the decision has been made to create a separate record for the reproduction, generally follow the guidelines below for giving MARC 775 and MARC 776 fields. The guidelines do not apply when the “single-record” or “provider neutral” technique is being used.
Relationship to the original: on the record for the reproduction, use a structured description to give the attributes of the original.
MARC field:
Carrier of reproduction is the same as the carrier of the original: use MARC field 775 .
Carrier of reproduction is not the same as the carrier of the original: use MARC field 776 .
Use the relationship designator “Reproduction of (manifestation)” 55

56. Example: Related manifestations
$a Health statistics for elementary
-school children.
264 #1 $a Baltimore : $b Johns Hopkins
University, $c 2009-
300 ## $a volumes ; $c 27 cm
$i Also issued as: $t Health statistics
for elementary-school children $d
Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University,
2009- $h CD-ROMs : 4 3/4 in.
This example of a related manifestation is the same expression in a different format. The printed text is being cataloged but there is also a CD-ROM version.
You can see the 776 field with the metadata for the related manifestation in CD ROM format.

57. Reproductions: LC core
LC: Generally, give information about the original in a linking field:
MARC 775 field if same carrier
776 field if different carrier
Use information as is from the record for the original
If detailed information is not available, give a bibliographic history note in a MARC 500 field
The LC policy (LC PS 27.1) is to give information about the original in a linking field.
If the carrier of the reproduction and the original is the same, use a 775 field; if the carriers are different, use a 776 field.
Copy information from the record for the original without updating it.
If a bibliographic record or other detailed information about the original is not available, give instead a bibliographic history note with as much information as you have in a MARC 500 field.

58. Reproductions: LC core (con’t)
If a reproduction is a compilation, generally
do not give MARC 775 or 776 linking fields for each work/expression in the compilation, and
do not give bibliographic history notes for each work/expression in the compilation
This slide gives some details about reproductions of compilations:
Don’t give either a MARC 775/776 field or a MARC 500 field for each work or expression in the compilation.

59. Example: Reproduction
Structured description including an identifier:
100 1# $a Ringwalt, J. Luther $q (John Luther)
$a Anecdotes of General Ulysses S. Grant.
264 #1 $a Washington, D.C. : $b Library of
Congress Preservation Microfilming
Program, $c 1993.
300 ## $a 1 microfilm reel (118 pages) ; $c 35 mm
$i Reproduction of (manifestation): $a
Ringwalt, J. Luther (John Luther) $t
Anecdotes of General Ulysses S. Grant $d
Philadelphia : J.B. Lippincott Company,
1886 $h 118 p. ; 18 cm. $n Call number
of original: E672.R58 $w (DLC)
This slide has an example of a reproduction in a different carrier.
In the 776 field for the original, use the appendix J designator “Reproduction of (manifestation)” in subfield $i. Capitalize the first word of the relationship designator and follow it with a colon.
The relationship designator includes the parenthetical term “(manifestation)” because it is possible to have reproductions of items as well. The LCCN of the bibliographic record for the original is included in subfield $w as an identifier.

60. Related items RDA 28.1 Common item relationships
Reproduction of a specific copy
“Bound with”
Item added to copy of manifestation in a special collection
Relationships that apply only to a single copy of the manifestation -- so, usually local information
The final part of this unit deals with related items.
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.
We are talking about relationships that apply only to a single copy of the manifestation—so this is usually local information. 60

61. Related item
LC catalogers are required to code related item relationships for:
Reproductions
Special relationships for rare materials as warranted
“Bound withs”
LC catalogers are required to code related item relationships for:
Reproductions
Special relationships for rare materials, as warranted
Bound withs

62. Recording Related items
RDA 28.1
Structured or unstructured description:
Linking entry fields: 7XX
5XX
Not by an authorized access point
Cataloger judgment to use relationship designators in RDA appendix J.5 in subfield $i if MARC content designation does not give relationship
RDA 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 items.
You can apply cataloger’s judgment about including other item relationships in bibliographic records and using relationship designators. 62

63. Examples: Related items
501 $i Bound with: $a ___________. $5 DLC
Here are two examples of relationships for related items.
A “bound with” situation applies only in a local library; it is not the “issued with” relationship that would apply to all items of a manifestation. (Might want to say this again.)
Some reprints are relationships at the manifestation level. The illustration here is one at the item level. A local library has made a copy of an item in its collection, perhaps for preservation purposes.
Does UCSD need to change its current practices for bound withs or for related items?
775 $i Reprint of (item): $t Hiking in
Unicoi State Park $d Helen, GA : RST
Publishers, 1955 $h 22 p. : ill. ;
19 cm.

64. Summary Related resources LC core: Works and Expressions:
Whole part compilations
Serial sequential relationships
Manifestations:
Reproductions
Items:
“Bound withs”
So, to summarize Unit 3:
There are relationships within the WEMI entities that are coded in bibliographic records in a variety of ways, some in the master record, and some as purely local data.
For works and expressions, especially important are coding the relationships for whole/part compilations and serial sequential relationships.
We noted a big change in the practices for cataloging reproductions.
And not so much change for bound withs and item-level reproductions.

65. Relationships between persons, families, and corporate bodies
Entities in relationships: Group 2
Relationships in authority records:
Related persons (ch. 30)
Related families (ch. 31)
Related corporate bodies (ch. 32)
We have reached the last unit for today’s training session: relationships between persons, families, and corporate bodies.
The relationships within Group 2 (families, persons, and corporate bodies) exist only in authority records. You may not be creating authority records but you need to understand the relationships you see in authority records you’re using. 65

66. Relationships between persons, families, and corporate bodies
LC catalogers focus on:
Different identities for persons
Immediately preceding/succeeding corporate bodies
LC’s core relationships for Group 2 entities are different identities for persons and immediately preceding/succeeding corporate bodies.
They instruct their catalogers not to give relationships between earlier and later conferences, exhibitions, and so on.
Again, NACO catalogers have already learned about this, so we will not be spending much time on this area. 66

67. LC policy for different identities
2 identities: use a 500 field in each NAR
3 or more identities: use a 663 field with $w nnnc in 500 fields (see DCM Z1 yellow page)
The LC policy for different identities is stated here: for two identities you do one thing, and for three or more identities, you do something else. This will be made clearer in the examples on the next slides.

68. Example: 2 identities 100 1# $a King, Stephen
500 1# $a Bachman, Richard
100 1# $a Bachman, Richard
500 1# $a King, Stephen
Here is an example of two identities using author Stephen King, who also writes as Richard Bachmann. These are nuggets of two separate authority records.
LC policy is to use 500 fields—straight see alsos--not coded with the $w r relationship designator. LC feels the 500 adequately expresses the relationship. So this is no change from the way we have been doing things under AARC2.

69. Examples: 3+ different identities
100 1# $a Twain, Mark, $d
500 1# $w nnnc $a Clemens, Samuel, $d
500 1# $w nnnc $a Snodgrass, Quintus Curtius, $d
663 ## $a For works of this author written under
other names, search also under $b Clemens,
Samuel Langhorne, , $b Snodgrass,
Quintus Curtius,
Authorized access point in authority records:
This is a more complex example, with three identities, and using the 663 technique. It is our old friend Mark Twain, who wrote under three identities. You can see that more explanation is needed, and is given via the 663 field. This approach also requires additional coding in the 500 see alsos.
If you need to do this, you will need to look up the details and consult Ryan.
100 1# $a Clemens, Samuel, $d
500 1# $w nnnc $a Twain, Mark, $d
663 ## $a For a listing of the names used by this
author, search also under: $b Twain, Mark,

70. Example: 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
Here is a corporate body example.
The relationship shown here between these familiar two corporate bodies is indicated here by the codes in subfield $w: “a” for earlier name and “b” for later name.
Again, this is no change from our practice under AACR2.
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 70

71. Other relationships
LC instructs its catalogers on giving other relationships in name authority records:
Cataloger judgment to give relationship designator from RDA appendix K in subfield $i to identify specific relationship
Need value “r” in subfield $w if using subfield $i
For other relationships, the LC policy is cataloger judgment, and like other PCC institutions, we have been following this, too.
Catalogers should use judgment about giving the relationship, and about including a relationship designator from Appendix K in subfield $i of the 5XX field.
If you give a relationship designator in subfield $i, you also need to give value “r” in subfield $w. We’ll see an example of this next… 71

72. Examples: person related to corporate body or family
100 1# $a Garr, Arnold K.
510 2# $w r $i Employer: $a Brigham Young
University
Here are two examples of persons with related corporate bodies and related families.
Remember these are in the authority records.
In the first example, a subfield $i in the 510 field explains the relationship between the corporate body and the person (it’s the employer). It is unlikely that we will code this kind of thing very often, but there may be select cases where a cataloger feels this is especially important. Note that we really do not want to do the reciprocal: list all of its employees in the corporate authority record for BYU!
The second example shows a related family in the 500 field. We don’t do much work with families here, but one can see that this might be useful in a genealogical library.
100 1# $a Carroll, Charles N. $q (Charles
Nagus), $d
500 3# $w r $i Descendants: $a Carroll
(Family : $g Carroll, Charles N.
(Charles Negus), ) 72

73. EXAMPLE M M Here is an extreme (and a real) example.
You can see the corporate body relationships to other corporate bodies and note the complexity.
Some LC staff prefer the simple earlier/later, but if an institution has the need and time for catalogers to show all these relationships, the use of Appendix K facilitates this – so just be aware of the possibilities. And don’t be surprised if you see records like this.

74. Summary
LC catalogers will code relationships in authority records for:
Different identities for persons
Immediately preceding/succeeding non-conference corporate bodies
This is a quick summary of Unit 4. We are in the home stretch…

75. Module 4: Relationships
Summary
Module 4: Relationships
“Relate” is the second main goal of RDA (the first is identify)
Relationships can be shown within and between FRBR Group 1 (work, expression, manifestation, item) and Group 2 (person, family, corporate body) entities
Relationship designators in Appendices I, J, K
So: to summarize your overall “take aways” for today’s session:
Relationships are a key part of RDA.
Remember that “relate” is one of the main user tasks in RDA – coming from FRAD.
We can show the relationships between and among Group 1 and 2 entities.
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? 75

76. Module 4: Relationships in RDA
Questions? 76