Proposal: Subject Relationship Element in RDA Chapter 23

Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

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

  1. Robert L. Maxwell says:

    Comment from John Attig:

    LC proposed the addition of instructions for a description of the subject (to include such things as “unauthorized” keywords). I believe that this accomplishes something that the Subcommittee wanted to do, and was unable to include in our proposal. I think we should support that addition.

    The addition of this third option (identifier, AAP, or description) may make it easier to suggest a more useful core requirement. It was the absence of a way of including “unauthorized” subject terms that made us reluctant to require the inclusion of either an identifier or an AAP.

  2. Robert L. Maxwell says:

    Comment from Tony Olson

    I have a few comments on some of the responses to 6JSC/ALA/31.

    Several of the organizations that responded had trouble with the same issue that we did. I.e., is a record an invalid RDA record if it does not include terms or identifiers from an authorized subject system? We decided that it could still be a valid RDA record. However, the instructions in Chapter 23 are silent on this point with the implication being that a record must include identifiers or terms from an authorized subject system to be a valid RDA. As our proposal recommends, this issue needs further discussion by the JSC.

    I also have a few comments on some of the specific responses.

    ACOC Response:
    I don’t really understand their response to recommendation 1. However, in general I don’t think that there should be any reference to the FRBR Group 3 entities (concept, object, place, event) in Chapter 23 which is dealing only with the high-level subject relationship.

    ACOC also suggests more complex examples for 23.4.1.3. I really don’t think that would be necessary or helpful.

    CCC Response
    I like their suggestion for adding the phrase “a term for” to the examples under 23.4.1.3.1 (as shown on page 2 of their response). However, I would suggest that we change the LC/NAF example to:
    Library of Congress/NACO Authority File control number: n 79032932
    Identifier for the Library of Congress/NACO authorized access point Wright, Frank Lloyd, 1867-1959, a term for an entity that is the subject of the work: Frank Lloyd Wright, his life and architecture

    Overall it seems that all of the responses generally agree with ALA’s proposal.

  3. Robert L. Maxwell says:

    Comment from John Hostage

    Concerning 6JSC/ALA/31
    I agree with LC that the relationship designators don’t need to be added to RDA. I agree with most of their other comments, including limiting the statements about core elements.

    I agree with CCC about using the indefinite article, but not about expanding 0.6.7 or using “locus of” as a relationship designator.

Leave a Reply