On 20/10/2011 00:56, Arakawa, Steven wrote:
<snip>
When I attended the RDA 101 ALA preconference, one of the things that
stuck with me was the RDA rule 2.4.1.8. AACR2 1.1F12 makes a fine
distinction between noun phrases that are indicative of the nature of
the work and noun phrases that are indicative of the role of the
person named in the statement of responsibility. The former category
is considered to be part of the title; the latter category is
considered to be part of the statement of responsibility. RDA 2.4.1.8
simply states that if a noun phrase occurs with a statement of
responsibility, it is part of the statement of responsibility. In
fact, RDA takes the same examples used by AACR2 to represent the 2
categories and puts both of them in the statement of responsibility.
Dr. Robert Ellett, the presenter at RDA 101, had a much more striking
example of a noun phrase than the ones used by RDA and AACR2: "a novel
by ..." which we have all seen at one time or another. AACR2
cataloging rather consistently interprets "a novel" as indicative of
the nature of the work, with "a novel" in 245 $b, usually immediately
preceding the ISBD slash and "by Ruth Latta" in 245 $c, following the
ISBD slash. Explaining AACR2 1.1F12 has always been a headache for me
when training staff, so I welcomed the rule simplification in RDA.
However, if there is no grammatical connection to the author, my
understanding has been that the noun (or the noun phrase) in RDA
remains part of the title. So, ".../ a novel by Ruth Latta" but "...:
a novel / Ruth Latta." For training purposes, I wanted to have a
couple of RDA examples, so I went to our LC resource file and did a
combined keyword search on "a novel" and "rda" for all books cataloged
from 2008.All of the records continued the practice of leaving "a
novel" in the other title and "by so and so" in the statement of
responsibility. I then searched on "a novel" in the extra set file of
the RDA test and the results were no different from the search limited
to LC cataloging. I've checked the LCPS and 2.4.1.8 is without
comment, and the rule is not covered in any of the LC Training
presentations I'm aware of. The only reference to 2.4.1.8 I've been
able to discover is in Adam Schiff's AACR2/RDA comparison
presentation, but the AACR2/RDA examples are taken from AACR2 1.1.F12
and RDA 2.4.1.8. So I'm wondering if I understand the RDA rule, or if
the wisdom of the crowd has resulted in the correct application of the
rule. One interesting note--I found quite a few poem collections in
the same LC resource file where "poems by" is in the statement of
responsibility; there are certainly examples of "poems / by" but the
number of grammatically connected "poem" phrases in the statement of
responsibility seemed to be noticeably different from the number of
grammatically connected "novel" phrases.
</snip>
I personally think that a jury of twelve people would very quickly
decide that a title page such as
[title of book]
a novel by Joe Smith
that the word "novel" describes the title of the book and not Joe Smith.
The alternative
[title of book]
a novel
Joe Smith
merely implies the word "by". In both cases, "a novel" is clearly linked
to the title and becomes other title information.
But if the 245 statement read
[title of book]
by the novelist Joe Smith
the word "novelist" describes Joe Smith and not the title of the book. I
think very few people would disagree with such reasoning and the
conclusions are obvious.
Still, experience plus a quick search reveals that there is practically
no consistency in how catalogers have applied any of this and the
catalogs have not caved in. I have never even heard of a user ever
questioning it so they seem to have no problem whether they see a colon
or slash before "a novel". Or, if it is in a more modern display, e.g.
Title: [title of book]
Other Title Information: a novel
Author statement: by Joe Smith
or
Title: [title of book]
Author statement: a novel by Joe Smith
I would be absolutely shocked if anyone would even notice. I admit it
would make some difference in searching if people were to search for
"[title of book] novel" and the word "novel" were placed in the
statement of responsibility and the 245c is not indexed for a title
search, but what the heck? We've survived this long!
Seems to me like this could be a great time to face facts and declare
"cataloger's judgment" since that's what has been happening for a long
time! But no matter what, I have no doubt that catalogers will continue
to record it however they want.
--
James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
