Proposal: Subject Relationship Element in RDA Chapter 23

6JSC/ALA/31
July 11, 2014

Subject Relationship Element in RDA Chapter 23

Note: CC:DA comments due by 7/24/14

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Proposal: Subject Relationship Element in RDA Chapter 23

  1. John Myers says:

    Comments on Section 4. Core requirement:
    Point b: I agree that “applicable and readily ascertainable” should be stressed — it is often challenging to assign subjects to works of belles lettres, sacred scriptures typically do not have subject headings assigned, and in the domain of classification, some institutions and communities rely on accession numbering rather than a classification structure.
    Point c: I think RDA should give broad deference to individual subject systems with respect to assignment of subjects when multiple subjects are involved in the work. LCSH and MeSH have different approaches, the anecdotal evidence of assignment of subjects by European agencies shows other alternatives as well.
    Points d &e: If the proposal, per point d requires the element to “be recorded only as an identifier or an authorized access point,” how is this possible for such identifiers or authorized access points to be established outside the context of “an authoritative subject system” which is not required in point e? Am I misunderstanding something here, or is this an aspect that warrants further assessment?

  2. John Myers says:

    Comment on Section 7, Relationship designators:
    Point d: I initially thought that expanding the “population” of relationship designators might be a fruitful mechanism for incorporating more of the FRBR approach proposed in 6JSC/Chair/8. On reflection, I’m not convinced that there are designators beyond those already proposed to better address the entities of Concept, Object, Event, Place. But this may be an area for subsequent development. The proposed two are a good start. And this comment should not hinder the proposal from moving forward.

  3. John Myers says:

    Comment on proposed 23.4.1.3.1:
    As my experience on MARBI/MAC has shown, the DNB extensively uses identifiers for all of their controlled terminology. Would it make sense to include an example from their oeuvre? (Or are we focusing on LC LAC, MeSH as English language exemplars for English as the official language of RDA?)

  4. John Myers says:

    Lastly, overall, a very strong, timely, and well thought out proposal!

Leave a Reply