RDA Appendix K Revision and Expansion

CC:DA/TF/Relationship Designators in RDA Appendix K/6
June 5, 2015

RDA Appendix K Revision and Expansion

 

 

CC:DA Task Force on Relationship Designators in RDA Appendix K

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to RDA Appendix K Revision and Expansion

  1. Robert Bratton says:

    Very interesting and a lot to digest here. Some of these designators made me think about how some relationships can be fairly static, but some can change over time. If we have designators like “capital” do we then need “former capital?” Or do we hope for some future chronological addition to these relationships to sort that out?

    Naypyidaw -> Capital of -> Burma (2005-)
    Yangon -> Capital of -> Burma (1862-2005)

    vs.

    Naypyidaw -> Capital of -> Burma
    Yangon -> Former capital of -> Burma

    vs.

    Naypyidaw -> Capital of -> Burma
    Yangon -> Capital of -> Burma
    Moulmein -> Capital of -> Burma
    Mandalay -> Capital of -> Burma
    etc.

    This question comes to mind when looking at several relationship designators.

    There are others designators that seem to beg for their counterparts. If we have “friend” do we need “enemy?”

    • Robert L. Maxwell says:

      Although there are a few relationship designators that imply a previous/later relationship most are sort of frozen in time–it doesn’t matter if the relationship took place in the past or present. K.0 says “Relationship designators are defined using the present tense, with the understanding that the terms can be used for relationships that took place in the past.” This would be the case with Yangon/Naypyidaw, etc. They all have the relationship to Burma of being its capital, whether in the present or the past.

      The only relationships that include a former/later concept are those for which that concept is the essence of the relationship (e.g. “predecessor/successor”). The relationship between Leningrad and St. Petersburg *is* that one is the predecessor of the other.

      By the way these examples are all for jurisdictions; as noted in the document relationships between jurisdictions are not part of the Appendix K proposal. However the principle applies to any relationship.

  2. Elizabeth O'Keefe says:

    A few typos:

    p. 4:

    “liguistic” should be “linguistic”

    p. 5:

    “we could link a preferred name with any a specific variant”– should this be “a specific variant” (used later in the sentence)?

    p. 5:

    Because of the future potential for linking any name, not just variants to preferred names, the title of the section was kept general: “Relationship Designators to Relate Different Names of a Person”, and scope notes do not refer to preferred or variant names, although it expected that at least for the near future the designators will only relate variant names to preferred names.

    Change “it expected” to passive” : “it is expected” or “it was expected”?

    Also: the paper states on p. 3:

    “The RDA definition of family has a broader scope than simply blood-related families: “The term family refers to two or more persons related by birth, marriage, adoption, civil union, or similar legal status, or who otherwise present themselves as a family.”Under the RDA definition it is feasible for a corporate body to found an entity that presents itself as a family.”

    I’m sure this is true, but I can’t come up with any examples that aren’t patently absurd. Could someone please put me out of misery by giving an example or two of a corporate body founding a family?

    • Robert L. Maxwell says:

      I don’t have an example of a corporate body founding a family, but the implication that one could is in the RDA definition. I actually can’t think of any examples of “entities that present themselves as a family” that aren’t actually one of the earlier examples given in the definition (related by birth, etc.), much less ones founded by a corporate body vs. a person or another family. But the RDA definition is what it is.

      • Robert L. Maxwell says:

        Actually, a noble family being founded by a sovereign (e.g. one of the “corporate bodies” formed like “Great Britain. Sovereign …”) might be such an example. I assume noble families have to get started somehow, presumably by a sovereign or a jurisdiction granting the title to the family.

        • Chair says:

          At least in the contexts I’m familiar with, titles are granted to individuals, and inherited by one from another, but they don’t form families. The Duke of Westminster’s family name is Grosvenor, and his family is still the Grosvenor family, not the Westminster family.

  3. Elizabeth O'Keefe says:

    P. 6, the attributive relationship

    This is a very interesting relationship. I like the general idea of it, but have some comments/questions about how it could be applied.

    Calling this the attributive relationship is a little jarring. The definition of “appropriator of identity” as “a person who has falsely assumed the name of the related person” indicates that “appropriated identify” is intended for cases of willful deception by the appropriator. Most attributions, at least for art works, are not due to willful impersonation, but to uncertainty or error by third parties, and there is no reciprocal relationship between two persons (because only one person, the person to whom the work was attributed, is identifiable). If there are successive re-attributions over time, so that a work once attributed to X is now attributed to Y, a relationship could be said to exist between X and Y, but it is not one of appropriation. The relator term that would be used in art cataloging would be “formally attributed to” X’; it would not imply fraud or error, and it would be a relationship between the person and the work, rather than a relationship between two persons.

    The fact that deception is involved would also appear to rule out attributions that take the form of: “Workshop of [Known Artist], Follower of [Known Artist], After [Known Artist].. In any case these are are not recognized by RDA as valid entities.

    It’s useful to have a way of relating “Pseudo-“ names to real persons. Could this relationship also be used to relate art or literary forgers to persons whose work they forged (e.g. Eric Hebborn, painter of spurious Old Masters, and Major Byron, forger of Byron and Shelley letters?). And what about non-bibliographic appropriations of identity, e.g. Perkin Warbeck impersonating one of the Princes in the Tower, or Arthur Orton impersonating Roger Tichborne?

  4. Dominique Bourassa says:

    I really enjoyed reading this. As Robert said, there is a lot to digest in this proposal. Here are a few comments until I fully digest what’s in there:

    Page 1, next to last paragraph, second sentence: “Designators included in K.2 may be used by one [should this say more instead of one?] than one entity or have reciprocal relationships with more than one entity”

    Page 12: publishisher: Publisher is already a term in the glossary with a different definition. I don’t mind, but is this o.k. according to RDA?

    Guardian and Ward appears in different places with different definitions. First in K.3.1.1. General Person to Person Relationships include guardian and ward (p. 13). Ward is also in K.3. Relationship Designators to Relate Persons to Corporate Bodies (p. 15) and Guardian in K.5.1 Relationship Designators to Relate Corporate Bodies to Persons (p 17). Is this correct according to RDA? Should these definitions be generalized and go into K.2.1?

  5. Tracey L. Snyder says:

    Comments from an MLA member (June 19):

    This proposal was quite a lot to digest, as it constitutes an almost complete overhaul and restructuring of the current Appendix K.

    I agree with the reasoning of and support the move from “family” and “corporate body” to “member of” discussed on pages 2-3.

    I found the discussion about how names are treated as separate entities within the secular/religious realm in FRAD on pages 3-5 to be a fascinating discussion and also agree that the application might have uses besides that realm. I think using the distinction between maiden/married names and personal/actor names as examples is a little more shaky that I would generally support on their own, but I can think of instances in which, like religious names, a name change constitutes a fundamental shift in identity within the person and how others see the person (two examples that come to mind immediately are Cassius Marcellus Clay vs. Muhammad Ali and Bruce Jenner vs. Caitlyn Jenner), and that change is so much of a shift that describing the two in a hierarchical fashion like we would with 1xx and 4xx fields in an authority record seems inappropriate. I initially wondered if Appendix K is the appropriate place for this discussion to take place as it is primarily for non-individual entities, but since people and corporations are intertwined and it relates to the larger discussion it seems fine to bring it in here.

    In general I also support how the data is restructured and presented, the discussion given on pages 4-5. I am excited by these changes because I think the changes proposed in this document are a good start in bringing the relationship designators into a space where names and relationships can link in multiple directions, as opposed to the hierarchical pattern we’ve had before. While we’re not currently in a position to do that yet with RDA because we’re still in a MARC environment, the changes and development of BIBFRAME and other encoding schemas mean that we can start thinking about and preparing for that possibility, and that’s an exciting prospect.

    The designators listed within the text of the proposal (as opposed to the discussion of the proposal) look good to me and make sense.

  6. Tracey L. Snyder says:

    Why are predecessor and successor restricted to families and corporate bodies?

Leave a Reply