The Library of Congress >> Especially for Librarians and Archivists >> Standards

HOME >> MARC Development >> Proposals List

MARC PROPOSAL NO. 2009-DP01/2: Relationship Designators for RDA Appendix J and K

DATE: January 13, 2009
REVISED:

NAME: Relationship Designators for RDA Appendix J and K

SOURCE: RDA/MARC Working Group

SUMMARY: This paper summarizes the issues involved in accommodating RDA Appendices J and K in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority formats.

KEYWORDS: Field 787 (BD); Nonspecific Relationship Note (BD); Relators, Relationship designators, Subfield $4 (BD, AD); Subfield $e (BD, AD); Linking entry fields (BD); RDA Appendix J; RDA Appendix K; RDA; Resource Description and Access

RELATED: 2008-DP05/1; 2009-DP01/1

STATUS/COMMENTS:

01/13/2009 - Made available to the MARC 21 community for discussion.

01/25/2009 - Results of the MARC Advisory Committee discussion - The committee decided not to proceed until there is a final text for these appendices since they are still seriously being worked on. It may come back as another discussion paper or it may come back as a proposal for ALA Annual 2009

Discussion Paper No. 2009-DP01/2: Relationship Designations for RDA Appendix J and K

1 INTRODUCTION

Appendix J, which lists possible relationships between works, expressions, manifestations and items, and Appendix K, which lists possible relationships between persons, families, and corporate bodies, were made available to the JSC constituencies for the first time in November, 2008, as part of the full RDA draft. The Working Group decided to prepare a discussion paper on accommodating relationships in MARC even though this area of RDA is still under review. This paper focuses on the various ways relationships are currently shown and possible changes to more fully accommodate the RDA relationships.

JSC constituencies have been invited to comment on the new Appendices J and K and it is likely that, following the JSC meeting in March 2009, changes will be made to the appendices based on comments from the constituency review. The RDA/MARC Working Group also notes that it used the Word version of Appendix J rather than the PDF generated from the XML, given that there were errors introduced in the conversion from Word to XML. Consequently, when referring to specific rule numbers in this paper, these may no longer correspond to the rule numbering in the PDF version that is available to the public.

Given that the current iterations of Appendix J and K are not yet stable, we would like to request that MARBI discussion focus on changes to the MARC 21 format that might be needed to accommodate RDA relationship designators at a high level. Any concerns with the content of RDA should be taken directly to CC:DA for submission to the JSC.

The objective should be to make any changes in the MARC 21 format that are necessary to accommodate RDA as it is likely to be implemented in Scenario 2 of the Database implementation scenarios, but that we should also be open to any changes that have a good chance of supporting experimentation in the MARC 21 shared cataloging environment with subsequent RDA implementation.

2 BACKGROUND

RDA Chapter 24.5 specifies different methods to demonstrate relationships between FRBR Group 1 entities (i.e. work, expression, manifestation, item). Appendix J specifies relatively comprehensive lists of these relationships. The methods described for specifying these relationships is through identifiers, preferred access points, unstructured descriptions, or structured descriptions. Terms from the Appendix J list may be recorded in conjunction with the identifier, preferred access point, or structured description to specify the relationship.

The RDA list facilitates explicit linking between works, expressions, manifestations and items, including a designation of the nature of that relationship, either using broad relationship terms or more specific ones. This may enable methods in the future for linking between FRBR Group 1 entities, including more extensive use of URIs that represent one of those Group 1 entities.

RDA Appendix K suggests that other FRBR entities, such as bibliographic identities representing the same person, corporate bodies that change names, and the like, are also rich with relationships which are listed in that Appendix. This also could be identified in bibliographic descriptions or accomplished by means of record linking or use of URIs to link to the related resource.

Note that in this paper we acknowledge that the relationship designator may be represented either by text or by a URI (and perhaps also by a code, if defined). The issue of accommodating URIs for controlled values in MARC is discussed in Discussion Paper No. 2009-DP01/1. Relationships addressed in this paper will use whatever mechanisms are chosen after those issues are discussed.

3 LINKING METHODS

3.1. Identifiers

RDA specifies that one method of linking between entities is through the use of identifiers. These identifiers could include ISBN, ISSN, URI, etc. The MARC formats accommodate linking identifiers currently in some fields, such as in the Linking Entry fields (76X-78X), where subfields $o (Other item identifier), $w (Record control number), $x (ISSN), and $z (ISBN) may be used. A few other fields contain subfields for the ISSN and a number of fields contain subfields for the record identifier of the linked resource. In the latter case, the expectation is that the data that specifies the linked resource will be explicit in the field along with the linking identifier. Field 856 (with second indicator value 2 (Related resource)) may also be used to link via a URI to a related electronic resource. There is, however, no mechanism to specify a relationship designator from RDA Appendix J, except for using it in a textual form in subfield $i (Display text).

3.2. Preferred access point

Another method for establishing relationships in RDA is via a preferred access point. This is accommodated in MARC in the added entry fields in the bibliographic format, i.e. 700, 710, or 711 fields with subfield $t or 730 fields (indicator 2 = blank). For example, bibliographic records for the film Gone with the wind will have a 700 with subfield $t for the novel by Margaret Mitchell (work) that was adapted in order to create the film work. Note that while there is logically a record for the related item, the format does not require that it exist.

It should be noted here that in the current environment certain relationships are considered subject relationships and the 6XX fields are used to bring them out. These include the following relationships from Appendix J: parody, imitation, analysis of, commentary on, critique of, review if, and evaluation of. In some cases a form subfield in the subject string identifies the relationship, e.g., $vParodies, imitations, etc. In other cases it is expected that note will identify the relationship and justify the inclusion of a subject heading.

3.3. Unstructured descriptions

RDA also allows recording relationships using unstructured descriptions such as notes. Unstructured descriptions may currently be recorded in MARC using appropriate 5XX notes in the bibliographic and authority formats. This method does not usually identify the precise relationship as controlled values, although the relationship terms could be used as text in an unstructured note.

3.4. Structured descriptions

According to RDA Chapter 24, structured descriptions may be used to show relationships, which is what the format carries in the current linking entry fields in bibliographic records (76X-78X). Structured descriptions are like mini records, and a number of descriptive data elements are accommodated in the linking entry fields, although not every data element is parsed into subelements as they are in their own fields. Some linking entry fields have been heavily used, particularly in cataloging of continuing resources. We probably would not want to disrupt their current use; however, we might be able to add a subfield to carry the specific relationship designator as appropriate across these fields. Note that the relationship designators in Appendix J allow for a broad relationship to be expressed (some of these are already available in the format by the use of a specific tag in the linking entry fields) as well as a more specific types of relationships. It will be a matter of policy as to how specific to be in characterizing the relationship between these entities.

Field 787 (Nonspecific Relationship Entry) is available to be used for relationships that are not covered by another already defined field. This field could be renamed “Other relationship” and a subfield defined to record the specific relationship designator from the list in Appendix J.

4 Accommodating Appendix J relationship designators in MARC

As previously mentioned, we will assume that for the first release of RDA, we will be supporting our current way of doing things, i.e. Scenario 2 in the database implementation scenarios document (linked bibliographic and authority records). In the future other methods may be used to accommodate FRBR levels, but this will require broad discussion, focused thinking, and experimentation.

As outlined above, we can currently accommodate the linking techniques in RDA, although in some cases there is not a mechanism to specify the more specific relationships listed in Appendix J. Subfields $e (Relator term) and $4 (Relator code) are defined in the preferred access point method in fields X00, X10, X11, and 6XX (except field 730). Although these subfields have been used for the relationship between names and resources (i.e. those in RDA Appendix I), it may be possible to use these for relationships between Group 1 entities (i.e. Appendix J relationships). The format specifies that the relator term ($e) or code ($4) is encoded between the subfield for name and title in order to show the relationship of the name to the title. Likewise, placing the $e and $4 after the title could indicate the relationship of the whole citation to the resource named in the 245. MARC could establish codes for these relationship designators as part of the MARC relator code list which would enable the use of $4. In the future the use of a URI for the relationship may be an option.

For the structured description method, the linking entry fields do not currently include subfield $e and $4. Those subfields are not defined except for subfield $e in field 775 (Other Edition Entry), which is defined as Language code.

5 Appendix K relationship designators

Some of the relationships listed in RDA Appendix K (name to name relationships) are already accommodated in MARC 21 authority records using existing $w subfield codes such as “immediate parent body“, but most could be represented using relator terms in existing $e subfields in 5XX fields in the authority format. A subfield $4 for the code is not defined in the 5XX in the authority format. The following table suggests a possible mapping of Appendix K relators using the existing MARC 21 format for authorities:

4 SUMMARY

To accommodate RDA Appendix J and K for the initial release of RDA a proposal may be necessary to add the following:

4.1. Subfields $e and $4 in linking entry fields (in particular for use in field 787) of the bibliographic format.

Subfield $e is available across linking entry fields except in field 775 where it is defined as Language code. Rather than defining a relationship subfield across all linking entry fields, an approach might be:

• Use the specific linking entry field that is appropriate for the kind of relationship and, if there is a more specific relationship designator in Appendix J, record it in $i or (a new) $4.
• For broad relationships other than those already defined in specific linking entry fields, use 787, adding a $4 subfields for relationship information, which means defining it only in 787.

4.2. Subfield $u in linking entry fields of the bibliographic format.

MARBI has considered proposals to add subfield $u in the past and felt that 856 should be used and coded in the second indicator as related resource instead. But this would not allow for the more specific relationship designator to be associated with the structured description of the related resource as it would be if included in the linking entry field; it would only then be found in the record for the other resource.

4.3. Add subfield $4 in 500, 510, and 511 and both $e and $4 in 530 in the authority format.

5 QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

5.1. In the bibliographic format, should $e (for X00 and X10)/$j (for X11) and/or $4 subfields in 600/610/611/630 and 700/710/711 that contain $t subfields (i.e., that represent works or expressions) be used to accommodate relationship designators from RDA Appendix J for the preferred access point method of linking? Should $e and/or $4 subfields be added to field 730 field to contain these relationship designators?

5.2. In the bibliographic format should a subfield 76X-78X (Linking entry fields) to link via URIs to related resources? Currently there is no such subfield for a URI although some have used subfield $o (Other item identifier). This would accommodate the identifier method of linking.

5.3. In the authority format do we need to enable the use of Appendix J relationship designators in 5XX fields? The ability to do this for work and expression authority heading records may be more efficient than expressing the same relationship in multiple bibliographic records.

5.4. Are there problems with using subfield $e in X00 fields to show relationships between resources (i.e. group 1 entities), where it is currently limited to describing the relationship between a name and a resource? Or is there another alternative, such as a new subfield (although there are few if any available), or new values for subfield $w/0?

5.5. Should MARC define codes for the relationship designator terms in Appendix J and K?

6 EXAMPLES (Appendix J)

6.1. Example 1 RDA rule J.1.2.1 based on (work)

Preferred access point, current practice:

245 00 $a Triumph : $b for concert band / $c by Michael Tippett.
500 ## $a “A paraphrase of music from The mask of time.” 
          00000000ISWC T-010.304.108-2.
700 1# $a Tippett, Michael, $d 1905-1998. $t Mask of time.

Unstructured (note), current practice:

500 ## $a Paraphrase of: Tippett, Michael, 1905-1998. Mask of time. — ISWC T-010.304.108-2.

Preferred access point, with possible Appendix J relator added:

245 00 $a Triumph : $b for concert band / $c by Michael Tippett.
500 ## $a “A paraphrase of music from The mask of time.” ISWC T-010.304.108-2.
700 1# $a Tippett, Michael, $d 1905-1998. $t Mask of time. $e paraphrase of (work)

6.2. Example 2 RDA rule J.1.2.1 based on (work)

Preferred access point, current practice:

245 00 $a Alice in Wonderland, or, What's a nice kid like you doing in a
          place like this? / $c Hanna-Barbera Productions ...
260 ## $a United States : $b ABC, $c [1966-03-30]
600 10 $a Carroll, Lewis, $d 1832-1898. $t Alice's adventures in Wonderland
          $v Parodies, imitations, etc.

Preferred access point, with possible Appendix J relator added:

245 00 $a Alice in Wonderland, or, What's a nice kid like you doing in a
          place like this? / $c Hanna-Barbera Productions ...
260 ## $a United States : $b ABC, $c [1966-03-30]
600 10 $a Carroll, Lewis, $d 1832-1898. $t Alice's adventures in Wonderland
          $v Parodies, imitations, etc. $e parody of (work)

6.3. Example 3: RDA rule J.1.3.1 description of (work)

Preferred access point, current practice:

245 02 $a A commentary on Gabriel Marcel’s The mystery of being / 
          $c Thomas C. Anderson.
600 10 $a Marcel, Gabriel, $d 1889-1973. $t Mystere de l’etre.

Preferred access point, with possible Appendix J relator added:

245 02 $a A commentary on Gabriel Marcel’s The mystery of being /
          $c Thomas C. Anderson.
600 10 $a Marcel, Gabriel, $d 1889-1973. $t Mystere de l’etre.
          $e commentary on (work)

6.4. Example 4: RDA rule J.1.4.2 contains (work)

Current practice: contents note and preferred access points:

100 1# $a Ravel, Maurice, $d 1875-1937.
240 10 $a Orchestra music. $k Selections
245 10 $a Orchestral works $h [sound recording] / $c Maurice Ravel.
505 0# $a Boléro -- La valse -- Rapsodie espagnole ...
700 12 $a Ravel, Maurice, $d 1875-1937. $t Bolero, $m orchestra.
700 12 $a Ravel, Maurice, $d 1875-1937. $t Valse.
700 12 $a Ravel, Maurice, $d 1875-1937. $t Rapsodie espagnole.

Preferred access points, with possible Appendix J relator added:

100 1# $a Ravel, Maurice, $d 1875-1937.
240 10 $a Orchestra music. $k Selections
245 10 $a Orchestral works $h [sound recording] / $c Maurice Ravel.
505 0# $a Boléro -- La valse -- Rapsodie espagnole ...
700 12 $a Ravel, Maurice, $d 1875-1937. $t Bolero, $m orchestra.
          $e contains (work)
700 1 2 $a Ravel, Maurice, $d 1875-1937. $t Valse. $e contains (work)
700 1 2 $a Ravel, Maurice, $d 1875-1937. $t Rapsodie espagnole.
           $e contains (work)

HOME >> MARC Development >> Proposals List