I'd also really like to hear a principled argument for having the option as
it is. Why does this apply only when there are more than 3 entities? What
is so special about "3"? I don't fully see how this arbitrary number can
be defended intellectually.
RD - Are you saying that you would like to be able to apply the option for
any number, e.g., more than 1, or more than 4?
What I'm saying is that "3" is a totally arbitrary number that we've
chosen and I'd like to hear more intellectual justification for it.
Different agencies might choose "2" or "4" or "5" as the cutoff for
transcribing all the names appearing in a statement of responsibility.
Others will want to (I feel this way) transcribe all names, as that is I
think more in accord with the principle of enabling users to find the
works of any author in a library's collection. If there is to be an
option to use the mark of omission after the first named entity in a
statement of responsibility, perhaps it should be left to the individual
agency to decide when it will only give the first named entity, rather
than when an arbitrary number of more than 3 entities is present in a
statement of responsibility?
--Adam
**************************************
* Adam L. Schiff *
* Principal Cataloger *
* University of Washington Libraries *
* Box 352900 *
* Seattle, WA 98195-2900 *
* (206) 543-8409 *
* (206) 685-8782 fax *
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
**************************************
