Standardising contributor roles and marc:relator codes

[Asher Smith]

As you can see from this spreadsheet, the relationship between marc:relators and SE contributor roles isn't standardised. In particular, we're not standardising the use of "win" (writer of introduction) and "aui" (author of introduction, etc.), and then we're not standardising what the SE role of that person is ("introduction," "contributor," "author-of-introduction," "author-2," etc.). This doesn't even begin to touch the equivalents for prefaces. Should we aim to standardise which code is used for e.g. someone who has written an introduction, standardise the descriptors they're given, and then implement that across the corpus?

Additionally, there are some codes in use (e.g. "wof" for writer of foreword) that do not appear in the approved list of marc:relators. Should a validation of if the marc:relator codes are on the approved list be in lint?

[Alex Cabal]

On 3/25/22 8:13 PM, Asher Smith wrote:
> As you can see from this spreadsheet

> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jBeON8dxi_m3RL9y8wrD9NK69dfU3r3U6XHa62PcXyw/edit?usp=sharing>,

> the relationship between marc:relators

> <https://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relacode.html> and SE contributor

> roles isn't standardised. In particular, we're not standardising the use
> of "win" (writer of introduction) and "aui" (author of introduction,
> etc.), and then we're not standardising what the SE role of that person
> is ("introduction," "contributor," "author-of-introduction," "author-2,"
> etc.). This doesn't even begin to touch the equivalents for prefaces.
> Should we aim to standardise which code is used for e.g. someone who has
> written an introduction, standardise the descriptors they're given, and
> then implement that across the corpus?

Sure. It's not clear to me how `aui` and `win` differ. I suppose `win`
is more general so we should just always use that one unless someone
else has insight here.

> Additionally, there are some codes in use (e.g. "wof" for writer of
> foreword) that do not appear in the approved list of marc:relators

> <https://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relacode.html>. Should a validation

> of if the marc:relator codes are on the approved list be in lint?

Yes, that would be a good check to do and pretty easy. I'm open to PRs! :)

[Vince]

On Mar 25, 2022, at 8:19 PM, Alex Cabal <al...@standardebooks.org> wrote:

On 3/25/22 8:13 PM, Asher Smith wrote:

As you can see from this spreadsheet <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jBeON8dxi_m3RL9y8wrD9NK69dfU3r3U6XHa62PcXyw/edit?usp=sharing>, the relationship between marc:relators <https://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relacode.html> and SE contributor roles isn't standardised. In particular, we're not standardising the use of "win" (writer of introduction) and "aui" (author of introduction, etc.), and then we're not standardising what the SE role of that person is ("introduction," "contributor," "author-of-introduction," "author-2," etc.). This doesn't even begin to touch the equivalents for prefaces. Should we aim to standardise which code is used for e.g. someone who has written an introduction, standardise the descriptors they're given, and then implement that across the corpus?

Sure. It's not clear to me how `aui` and `win` differ. I suppose `win` is more general so we should just always use that one unless someone else has insight here.

This page says:

Author of introduction, etc. [aui]

A person or organization responsible for an introduction, preface, foreword, or other critical introductory matter, but who is not the chief author

Writer of introduction [win]

A person, family, or organization contributing to a resource by providing an introduction to the original work

It’s not clear if “not the chief author” in aui means not the chief author of the work, or not the chief author of the intro. The wording is ambiguous. Probably the former?