1. Module 5: Relationships
So far we’ve been talking only about core elements that identify entities. This module is about bibliographic relationships.
Because only a few of the relationships are LC core elements, this module is comparatively short, but do not assume that relationships aren’t important or that there aren’t many relationships. Both would be incorrect assumptions.
Relationships are an important part of RDA; remember in module 1 we discussed how the two basic goals in the structure of RDA are to identify and relate (from the FRBR/FRAD user tasks and the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles). Expressing relationships in bibliographic and authority records help users find what they want.
The decision to include relationships other than those identified as core elements will be cataloger’s judgment. You will want to investigate what other relationships are possible in the various RDA chapters cited in this module, and decide which relationships you think are important to help users find the specific resource or entity you’re identifying.
-- in bibliographic records and
in authority records
Library of Congress RDA Preconference for MLA/DLA May 4, 2011

2. Relationships: two parts
The entities being related
Work, expression, manifestation, item, person, family, corporate body, etc.
Identified by the authorized access point or identifier or description
The type of relationship
Identified by a relationship designator
Relationships really consist of two parts:
There are the entities being related – and what do we mean by entities? – the work, expression, manifestation, item, person, corporate body, family, and so on – the FRBR entities. Entities can be identified by their authorized access point (what we used to call heading) or and identifier, such as an LCCN or an ISBN or URI (universal resource identifier).
But the other part of a relationship is stating the type of relationship, and we do this with a relationship designator – For example, a term or code that says what the relationship is, or what role a person, corporate body, or family plays with respect to a particular work or expression or manifestation or item.
RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May Module 5

3. Relationships Person Work Shakespeare Hamlet created was created by
Remember this picture of Entities and relationships? We usually identify the entities by their authorized access points
and the relationship through a relationship designator.
Shakespeare
Hamlet
RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May Module 5 3 3 3

4. Appendix I lists the “relationship designators” or roles played by the persons, families, and corporate bodies associated with Works, Expressions, Manifestations, and Items.
These terms are also on the RDA Registry and included in the MARC format – more about that in a minute….
The list of terms for relationship designators in RDA can be used at a general level or a specific level, depending on the application. For example, we could just identify “creator” as the role or we could have our schema identify that automatically by declaring a creator element, as RDA does, or we could go to a more specific level to identify what type of creator – such as an artist, a composer, and author, and so on. In the MARC format we can add a subfield e for the relator term to a field for a person, family, or corporate body to show this, or it also could be indicated in MARC with a code in $4 (relator code).
RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May Module 5

5. Core relationships previously discussed
The entity related to naming the work:
Creator (RDA 19.2)
Two entities covered by naming the work or expression:
Work manifested (RDA 17.8)
Expression manifested (RDA 17.10)
We have already covered three RDA relationships:
- in module 3 on naming the work we covered the relationship to the creator when naming the work; and
- two other entities, were the work manifested and the expression manifested, which are already in the MARC record as the authorized access point naming the single or first work/expression in the resource. In MARC this information is doing double duty to name the entities and to identify the relationship as between the manifestation being described and the work and expression that are contained.
RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May Module 5

6. Other entities in relationships
Contributors (ch. 20)
Related works (ch. 25)
Related expressions (ch. 26)
Related manifestations (ch. 27)
Related items (ch. 28)
Related persons (ch. 30)
Related families (ch. 31)
Related corporate bodies (ch. 32)
The categories of entities in relationships covered in this module are listed here. But not all of the relationships shown here will be considered essential or core.
RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May Module 5

7. Contributor (RDA 20.2)
A person, family, or corporate body associated with an expression, e.g.,
Translators
Editors of compilations
Performers
Illustrators
Arrangers of music
Compilers
Contributors are those persons, families, or corporate bodies that are associated with expressions. More specific roles or as RDA calls them, “relationship designators” for contributors at the expression level include editors of compilations, translators, performers, illustrators, arrangers of music, compilers, writers of added commentary, and so on.
RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May Module 5

8. Relationship for contributors
Give as authorized access point in MARC 7XX fields in bibliographic record
Relationship designators from RDA appendix I in subfield $e of 7XX field
Not a closed list
Do not include $e in name authority record
In the MARC format, we code the related entities as authorized access points in MARC 7XX fields in the bibliographic record. For example, if the contributor is an illustrator, we give that relationship designator as a term from RDA’s appendix I in subfield $e of the 7XX field. This is not a closed list of terms, but the JSC hopes to keep it controlled, so if you want to add a term, you can officially recommend it to the JSC through the ALA representative to the JSC.
Notice that you would not normally include these relationship designators in authority records, as they apply to the resource you are cataloging in the bib record.
You will want to apply cataloger’s judgment to use the relationship designator for any contributor you add to a bibliographic record.
RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May Module 5

9. Example: contributor 100 1# $a Wood, Audrey.
$a The napping house / $c Audrey Wood
; illustrated by Don Wood.
700 1# $a Wood, Don, $e illustrator.
Notes: 1) Relationship designator “author” could be given
for creator in 100 field.
2) 2nd statement of responsibility is not core; also,
it isn’t needed to justify the 700 field.
This example shows the contributor, Don Wood, with subfield $e to represent the relationship to the expression that is embodied in this manifestation that we are describing. That access point doesn’t need to be justified by including the 2nd statement of responsibility (illustrated by Don Wood) as shown in the example. In fact that second statement of responsibility is not “core” in RDA, so can be omitted, while still keeping.
RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May Module 5

10. Example: contributor 100 1# $a Lindgren, Astrid, $d 1907-2002,
$e author.
$a Pippi Långstrump. $l English
$a Pippi Longstocking / $c Astrid
Lindgren ; translated by Tiina Nunnally.
700 1# $a Nunnally, Tiina, $d $e
translator.
Here’s an example for a translator. The decision about whether or not to include the relationship designators in subfield $e of the 100 and 700 fields is cataloger’s judgment.
Any questions about contributors?
Notes: 1) Relationship designators “author” and “translator”
could be given -- cataloger judgment.
2) 2nd statement of responsibility is not core; also,
it isn’t needed to justify the 700 field.
RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May Module 5

11. Cataloging Rules Cut-Off Point
Family of Works
Equivalent
Derivative
Descriptive
Free
Translation
Review
Microform
Reproduction
Edition
Casebook
Summary
Abstract
Dramatization
Simultaneous
“Publication”
Abridged
Edition
Digest
Criticism
Novelization
Screenplay
Copy
Libretto
Illustrated
Edition
Evaluation
Revision
Change of Genre
Exact
Reproduction
Parody
Translation
Annotated
Edition
Expurgated
Edition
Imitation
You may remember this picture from Module 1 – if shows content relationships among works and expressions and manifestations in broad categories: equivalent content, derivative content, and descriptive content.
Same Style or
Thematic Content
Variations or Versions
Facsimile
Arrangement
Commentary
Slight
Modification
Reprint
Adaptation
Original Work - Same Expression
Same Work –
New Expression
New Work
Cataloging Rules Cut-Off Point 11

12. Relationships Inherent among the Group 1 entities
Work
Inherent among the Group 1 entities
Content relationships among works/expressions
Structural relationships
Expression
Manifestation
Item
Whole-Part
And this slide from module 1 shows other kinds of inherent and structural relationships, like whole/part, sequential, and accompanying relationships.
Sequential
Derivative
Accompanying 12
RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May Module 5 12

13. Related work (RDA 25.1) Common work relationships: Whole-part, e.g.,
Works in a compilation
Chapters in a book
Adaptations
Supplements
Sequential relationships (e.g., earlier and later serials)
Chapter 25 of RDA addresses the relationship between a work and other works: whole-part relationships, derivative relationships like adaptations, parodies, accompanying relationships like supplements, and sequential relationships like earlier/later serials, etc.
RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May Module 5

14. Relationship: related work
Three methods (RDA 24.4)
Identifier (not used alone in RDA Test)
Authorized access point
Description (structured or unstructured)
Cataloger judgment to use relationship designators in RDA appendix J.2; MARC content designation indicates some relationships
There are three RDA possibilities for expressing the relationship between works: an identifier (not used by itself in the RDA Test), an authorized access point, and either a structured or unstructured description.
What’s an identifier? URI, LCCN, OCLC record no., ISBN, ISSN, etc.
What’s an authorized access point? What we used to call an authorized heading.
What do we mean by a structured description? A description where we indicate the elements – using ISBD punctuation or MARC tagging - :
Reprint of: Venice / by Cecil Roth. — Philadelphia : The Jewish Publication Society of America, — (Jewish communities series)
Or a structured Contents note with subfields for the authors, titles, etc.
What’s an unstructured description? Notes where we use narrative rather than a formal tagged structure to describe the relationship – e.g., a note that says: Activities are based on the book How the brain learns, by David A. Sousa, 3rd edition, 2006
Or: Reprint of the revised and updated edition published in 1971 by Farrar, Straus & Giroux
Whether to use an authorized access point or a description or both is cataloger’s judgment.
The relationship designators, for this category are in RDA appendix J.2. Many of them are in hierarchies for more specificity. Things like……”based on (work)”.
Catalogers can assign another term if the needed term is not in the appendix. Because some MARC content designation already indicates the relationship, a designator term may not always be needed, for example…..the 780 and 785 indicators in the MARC format are intended to be used to display the relationship designators, such as “Continues” “Continued by” as shown with indicators.
RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May Module 5

15. Whole-part relationships: LC policies for the Test
No limit on number of works, unless burdensome, in MARC 505 contents note
Cataloger’s judgment for number of MARC 7XX analytical authorized access points if that is the method used to give the relationship
Don’t need to justify the 7XX analytical access points by a 505 field
RDA leaves it to cataloger’s judgment to decide the number of works in a MARC 505 contents note and the total number of analytical authorized access points in 7XX fields. The 505 field isn’t required to justify the authorized access points.
It has been shown in other studies that users really like having the contents information, so catalogers should try to include them unless a contents note would be extremely long.
RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May Module 5

16. Whole-part work example
Authorized access points for the works:
100 1# $a Shakespeare, William, $d
$a Hamlet ; $b King Lear / $c William
Shakespeare.
* $a Shakespeare, William, $d
$t Hamlet.
$t King Lear.
In this example authorized access points are used to represent the relationship between the parts to the whole. Because the second indicator identifies the relationship (the 2 = analytical entry), a relationship designator from appendix J wouldn’t be necessary in the 700 fields.
* 2nd indicator in 700 indicates the relationship “Contains”
RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May Module 5

17. Example: serial related works
Structured descriptions and three identifiers each:
$a TCA journal.
$t Journal of professional counseling,
practice, theory, & research $x 1556-
6382 $w (DLC) $w (OCoLC)
$a Journal of professional counseling,
practice, theory, & research.
$t TCA journal $x $w (DLC)
$w (OCoLC)
In this example of a title change of a serial, a structured description also containing three identifiers is used to show the relationship between the earlier and later serial.
785 indicators 00 = relationship “Continued by”
780 indicators 00 = relationship “Continues”
RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May Module 5

18. Related expression (RDA 26.1)
Common expression relationships:
Whole-part (e.g., translations in a compilation)
Revisions
Editions
Translations
Language editions
Abridgements
Chapter 26 addresses the relationship between an expression and other expressions, which includes derivative relationships, like revisions, editions, translations, abridgements, and so on.
RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May Module 5

19. Relationship: related expression
Three methods (RDA 24.4)
Identifier (not used alone in US RDA Test)
Authorized access point
Description (structured or unstructured)
Cataloger judgment to use relationship designators in RDA appendix J.3; MARC content designation gives some relationships
The same three RDA possibilities for expressing the relationship between works exist for relationships between expressions with the same guidance: an identifier (not used by itself in the RDA Test), an authorized access point, and either a structured or unstructured description. Whether to use an authorized access point or a description or both is cataloger’s judgment.
The relationship designators, for this category are in RDA appendix J.3; many of them are in hierarchies for more specificity. As with the other relationships designators for works and expressions, catalogers can assign another term if the needed term is not in the appendix. And as mentioned before, because some MARC content designation already indicates the relationship, a designator may not always be necessary.
RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May Module 5

20. Whole-part expression example
Authorized access points for the expressions:
100 1# $a Petterson, Per, $d 1952-
$a Two Norwegian novels / $c Per
Petterson.
$a Petterson, Per, $d $t Ut og
stjæle hester. $l English.
$a Petterson, Per, $d $t Til
Sibir. $l English.
In this example authorized access points are used to represent the relationship between the parts to the whole. The second indicator identifies the relationship (as being an analytical entry).
A 505 contents note could have been included as well but is not required.
Could also include a contents note but not required to justify
the access points; or, a contents note without the 700 fields
would be possible: # $a Out stealing horses -- To Siberia.
RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May Module 5

21. Example: serial related expression
Unstructured description for other language edition:
130 0# $a Revista de política y derecho
ambientales en América Latina y el
Caribe. $l English.
$a Journal of environmental policy
and law in Latin America and the
Caribbean.
580 ## $a Issued also in Spanish under title:
Revista de política y derecho
Caribe.
Language editions are related expressions. In this example of a serial, an unstructured description in field 580 is used to give the relationship. The reciprocal relationship would be given in the bibliographic record for the Spanish edition.
RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May Module 5

22. Related expression - translation (example 1)
Authorized access point:
100 1# $a Brown, Dan, $d 1964-
$a Digital fortress. $l French
$a Forteresse digitale.
700 1# $a Translation of: $a Brown, Dan,
$d $t Digital fortress.
The expression-level relationship for a translation is not a required. But this slide and those following are included to illustrate the range of possibilities available when including other relationships. The authorized access point shows the relationship between the translation being cataloged and the original; the relationship designator from appendix J is in subfield $i (translation of).
RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May Module 5

23. Related expression - translation (example 2)
Structured description in 500 field:
100 1# $a Brown, Dan, $d 1964-
$a Digital fortress. $l French
$a Forteresse digitale.
500 ## $a Translation of: Digital fortress /
Dan Brown. -- 1st ed. -- New York :
St. Martin’s Press,
pages ; 22 cm.
This example illustrates the use of a structured description using a note; the 500 field begins with the appendix J relationship designator and then contains the elements of a description in an ISBD display format with each element separated by ISBD punctuation.
RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May Module 5

24. Related expression - translation (example 3)
Structured description in 765 field:
100 1# $a Brown, Dan, $d 1964-
$a Digital fortress. $l French
$a Forteresse digitale.
*765 0# $a Brown, Dan, $t Digital
fortress $b 1st ed. $d New York :
St. Martin’s Press, $h 371
pages ; 22 cm $w (DLC)
The same descriptive information on the previous slide could be given with subfield coding in a 765 field. Subfield $i isn’t used in a 765 field because a 2nd indicator of blank identifies the relationship (blank = “translation of”).
* 2nd indicator “blank” = “Translation of”
RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May Module 5

25. Related expression - translation (example 4)
Unstructured description in 500 field:
100 1# $a Brown, Dan, $d 1964-
$a Digital fortress. $l French
$a Forteresse digitale.
500 ## $a Translation of the author’s novel
Digital fortress.
The last possible method for giving the relationship is an unstructured description in a simple 500 note that has not been structured with specific tagging.
RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May Module 5

26. Related manifestation (RDA 27.1)
Common manifestation relationships:
Reproductions
Different formats for same expression (e.g., book vs. CD; book vs. PDF)
Special issues
Two methods (RDA 24.4)
Identifier (not used alone in RDA Test)
Description (structured or unstructured)
Cataloger judgment to use relationship designators in RDA appendix J. 4
Chapter 27 addresses the relationship between a manifestation and other manifestations: reproductions, different formats, special issues, inserts, etc.
Here again we can use an identifier and/or a structured or unstructured description to show the relationship. But notice that an authorized access point is not one of the methods available to give relationships to other manifestations. This is something that could change in the future.
You should apply cataloger’s judgment about including other manifestation relationships in bibliographic records and using relationship designators that are found in Appendix J.4 of RDA.
RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May Module 5

27. Related item (RDA 28.1) Common item relationships
Reproduction of a specific copy
“Bound with”
Item added to copy of manifestation in a special collection
Two methods (RDA 24.4)
Identifier (not used alone in RDA Test)
Description (structured or unstructured)
Cataloger judgment to use relationship designators in RDA appendix J.5
Chapter 28 addresses the relationship between an item and other items, such as reproductions of a specific copy of a manifestation, bound withs, items added to an individual copy of a manifestation in a special collection, etc.
As we noticed for manifestations, an authorized access point is not one of the methods available to give relationships to other manifestations.
You can apply cataloger’s judgment about including other item relationships in bibliographic records and using relationship designators.
RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May Module 5

28. Related persons, families, and/or corporate bodies
Relationship recorded in authority record in 5XX field
Can also give relationship designator from RDA appendix K in subfield $i to identify specific relationship
Some relationships in MARC indicated by values in subfield $w (e.g., “a” and “b” for earlier and later corporate bodies) -- cataloger judgment or library policy to use in lieu of subfield $i
RDA includes chapters and appendices to show relationships between persons, families, and corporate bodies. These would be included in an authority record as an extension of the 5XX field.
You could also include the relationship designator from Appendix K in the MARC subfield $i to specify what the relationship is.
For corporate bodies, MARC has $w with the codes a and b to show earlier and later corporate bodies and it would be cataloger’s judgment or a library’s policy to use the $w in lieu of the subfield $i.
RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May Module 5

29. Examples: person related to corporate body or family
100 1# $a Garr, Arnold K.
510 2# $w r $i Employer: $a Brigham Young
University
100 1# $a Carroll, Charles N. $q (Charles
Nagus), $d
500 3# $w r $i Descendants: $a Carroll
(Family : $g Carroll, Charles N.
(Charles Negus), )
Here we have a couple of examples of persons with related corporate bodies and related families. Remember these are in the authority records – using $i in the 510 field to show a related corporate body and the second example shows a related family in the 500 field with first indicator 3.
RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May Module 5

30. Examples: related corporate bodies
110 2# $a Library of Congress. $b Policy and
Standards Division
510 2# $w r $i Predecessor: $a Library of
Congress. $b Cataloging Policy and
Support Office
110 2# $a Library of Congress. $b Cataloging
Policy and Support Office
510 2# $w r $i Successor: $a Library of
Congress. $b Policy and Standards
Division
Here we have the earlier / later relationship for two corporate names, with the specific relationship indicated in the $i. Or we could also give the specific relationship…
RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May Module 5

31. Examples: related corporate bodies
Giving specific relationship in $w:
110 2# $a Library of Congress. $b Policy and
Standards Division
510 2# $w a $a Library of Congress. $b
Cataloging Policy and Support Office
110 2# $a Library of Congress. $b Cataloging
Policy and Support Office
510 2# $w b $a Library of Congress. $b
Policy and Standards Division
In just the $w – using the codes a for earlier and b for later name.
RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May Module 5

32. Review “Relate”: second main task of RDA (first = identify)
Relationships within and between FRBR Group 1 and Group 2 entities
Relationship designators in appendices I, J, and K
Questions?
And that’s it for relationships.
Remember that “relate” is one of the main user tasks in RDA – coming from FRAD and that we can show the relationships between work, between expressions, between manifestations, between items – those are the FRBR Group 1 entities; and we can show the relationships between persons, between corporate bodies, and between families – those are the FRBR Group 2 entities. And we can also show the relationships across entity types, such as between a work and a person, between an expression and a corporate body, between a person and a corporate body, and so on. RDA provides terms to use for the relationship designators in Appendices I, J, and K, and those lists of terms are NOT closed lists.
Are there any questions about the relationships included in this module?
RDA for MLA/DLA 4 May Module 5