Appendix I Relationships for Works Issued Over Time

5 July 2015

Appendix I Relationships for Works Issued Over Time


Submitted by Alan Danskin, British Library

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Appendix I Relationships for Works Issued Over Time

  1. Lori Robare says:

    From Adam Schiff, regarding the options in Change 2:
    I think I actually prefer option B. I do want to point out that ALA’s revision proposal of Appendix K (6JSC/ALA/43) gets rid of “founded family” and “founded corporate body” and replaces them with the single “founder of”. If JSC accepts that, then there would not be a need for “founded work” either; “founder of” could be used for that too.

    If the JSC agrees that the same designators can be used in Appendix I and K, then there’s another one I would like them to consider adding to Appendix K: medium. “medium” is found in I.2.2 as a relationship designator of a person to a work. However, there is also a relationship between a medium and the spirit who they channel. Appendix K needs the following:

    medium A person said to be a channel of communication between the earthly world and a spirit.

    medium for A spirit that channels communication to a medium.

    Here’s an example:

    Gunter (Spirit)
    see also
    Medium: McCormick, Margaret

    McCormick, Margaret
    see also
    Medium for: Gunter (Spirit)

    • Kathy Glennan says:

      FYI, to date the JSC has not agreed that the same term can be used in different appendices. This is why the proposal for “medium” got stalled.

      • John Myers says:

        Despite the preference expressed by many for Option B, it does not seem possible within the current construct of the existing Appendices I-M. A relationship between a Resource (e.g. Work) and Persons, etc., must be addressed in Appendix I, which requires Option A as the solution.

  2. Robert L. Maxwell says:

    I agree with the need for designators for these relationships.

    I first note that expressions can be founded in the same way works can be (e.g., somebody to decides to fund the ongoing translation of a serial), so that should be taken into account in the revision proposal.

    I agree it would be cleaner to use “founder/founder of” as a designator for all relationships of this type, whether the entity founded a family, a corporate body, a work, or expression.

    If JSC doesn’t want to allow the same designator to be used across appendixes (though I don’t see why not) I urge the inclusion of expressions in the revision proposal: “founder of work/work founded” , “founder of expression/expression founded”. But it would be cleaner just to use “founder/founder of”.

  3. Matthew Haugen says:

    I agree with the above comments and like the general Option B better as well.

  4. Lori Robare says:

    From Adam Schiff:
    There are numerous capitalization errors in the proposed examples in 6JSC/BL/27. I assume the Examples Editor will clean them up, but maybe worth noting.

    Change 1:

    publishing director : a person, family or corporate body having legal and/or intellectual responsibility for the content of a work RDA doesn’t use a colon and the first word of the definition should be capitalized

    Authorized access point representing the founder and publishing director of: Le Monde from 1944-1969 Only the initial article should be capitalized: Le monde

    Change 2, both options:

    Whether it is “founder of work” or “founder” there shouldn’t be a colon after the term and the first word of the definition should be capitalized

    L’Année sociologique Only the initial article should be capitalized: L’année sociologique

  5. Robert Bratton says:

    I also agree with the need for designators for these relationships. For the definitions, should they contain the stipulation “Apply generally to serials” as many of the designators in J.2.6 do? If that isn’t made clear, I think there is potential for much confusion.

  6. Kathy Glennan says:

    I think that the proposal in 6JSC/ALA/43 about how to handle the “founder” relationship in Appendix K is superior to what is proposed in this paper. If all agree, we should say this in our response.

  7. Kathy Glennan says:

    For change #2, I can support either option A or B, but my instinct is that the Option A solution will be required at this time.

  8. Tina Shrader says:

    One of my colleagues questions the use of the designator ‘founded family’. She thinks that families are not founded at a particular point in time the way corporate bodies are, and would like to see very clear examples of cases where the ‘founder of’/’founded family’ relationship would apply.

    Aside from that question, I think there’s widespread support for this proposal amongst my colleagues, and general agreement that Option B is our preference.

  9. John Myers says:

    Does “Founder” = “1st Director of Publication”? If so, should this status be privileged with its own relationship designator as proposed? Does it make sense to distinguish between the Founder and subsequent Directors? Answering my own question, it seems that “Progenitor” and “Family member” offers a parallel hierarchical structure from Appendix K.

  10. Kathy Glennan says:

    Posted on behalf of the PCC Standing Committee on Standards:

    The SCS supports the new relationship designator for “publishing director,” however, we feel that this term should be restricted to the legal context (as in French law, etc.) and should not be construed to also apply to editors in the English sense of that word. This appears to us to be a workaround to get a much needed work-level editor term in RDA, an effort we wholeheartedly support. In fact, we have recently submitted a proposal to the JSC for just that (called “editor (work)”).

    Some comments from individual members of SCS:

    Comment 1:
    I wouldn’t’ restrict it [a work-level editor term] to works issued over time, however. A lot of monographs that are compilations of essays, etc. say that they are edited by a certain person. In many cases, this person does more than just compile a bunch of preexisting works into a new work; he/she actually starts with a vision of work, seeks out contributors, commissions them to write essays/chapters, monitors the progress, assesses the quality the parts, works with the publishers, markets the final product, etc. Very similar to what a periodical or newspaper editor does but just with a work that is complete in one issuance.

    Comment 2:
    The definition in the French Wikipedia ( is helpful. The legal aspect derives from the fact that this is the person who represents the shareholders and can be sued for defamation under French law. French law requires that each “publication de presse” have a directeur de publication. I get the sense that this is very specific to France and any RD for it may be more appropriate as a sub-property of editor (work). It might help if we had input from someone in the publishing community.

    Comment 3:
    I would say that, in the context of Linked Data, it would be better if the scope of the BL proposal were restricted to the meaning of the term in the French legal context and that an additional term, broader in scope, be developed to cover it and related concepts. Otherwise the RD will be of limited use if a SPARQL query originates, for example, within the context of the French publishing or legal communities. We might want “editor (work)” to also be narrower than this broader term, though I suppose it could be defined broadly enough that it could serve as this broader term. I have no particular attachment to “editor (work)” as a term, but, to paraphrase Voltaire, if the concept does not exist within RDA it will be necessary to invent it.

Leave a Reply