Deborah,
you're right: 2.3.2.5 doesn't fit because it only covers title
information which is positioned on the source for the title proper.
Phew, one really must read RDA *very* carefully...!
So it seems we have to base the argument for "things which look like
other title information but cannot be recorded as such as they are not
on the t.p." (henceforth: "things which look like other title
information") on the rules for variant titles in 2.3.6 alone: "A variant
title is a title associated with a resource that differs from a title
recorded as the title proper, a parallel title proper, other title
information, parallel other title information, earlier title proper,
later title proper, key title, or abbreviated title."
This applies to our case. It would belong to class a), i.e. variant
titles "that appear on the resource itself". I think it would be a good
idea to add an example here for a "thing which looks like other title
information".
Yes, I also noted that the definition for other title information says
that it "appears in conjunction with, and is subordinate to, the title
proper of a resource". This is probably supposed to imply that it *must*
be on the same source as the title proper, but if you think about it
this doesn't necessarily follow.
Consider the following case:
t.p.: [Name of author] [title proper]
cover: [Name of author] [title proper] [thing that looks like other
title information]
Here, the title proper would be taken from the t.p. But it also appears
on the cover, and there it's certainly in conjunction with the thing
that looks like other title information. So the definition alone
wouldn't be enough to rule out the possibility of recording it as other
title information. This only follows from 2.3.4.2 ("Take other title
information from the same source as the title proper").
Now, that was really a tricky one!
By the way, as we're are talking about variant titles: I was wondering
the other day about an example at 2.3.6.3 ("Recording variant titles"):
"Arranging and describing archives and manuscripts
Title proper recorded as: Arranging & describing archives & manuscripts"
It is, of course, obvious (and common practice) to record a version with
"and" as a variant title. But I'm not absolutely sure under which of the
classes a) to g) this example should be placed. I assume it would be a
case of c) ("those assigned by an agency registering or preparing a
description of the resource (e.g., a title assigned by a repository, a
cataloguer's translation or transliteration of the title"). Would you agree?
Heidrun
Deborah Fritz said:
Heidrum,
I'm not sure that 2.3.2.5 works for this situation, because it begins by
saying: "If the* source of information for the title proper bears a title in
more than one form*, and if both or all of the titles are in the same
language and script, choose the title proper on the basis of the sequence,
layout, or typography of the titles on the source of information." The
instruction then goes on as you show below, but since this instruction is
referring to the "source of information for the title proper", and we are
discussing title information that is not on the same source as the Title
Proper, I don't think this instruction actually applies to our example.
But, based on John's explanation, I now see that the scope for Other Title
Information is: " information that appears in conjunction with, and is
subordinate to, the title proper of a resource." This bears out the idea
that if what looks like Other Title Information is not on the same source as
the Title Proper (in conjunction with it) then it is not actually Other
Title Information--as you say, this is quite a change from our current
thinking.
Just as an aside, this must mean that 2.2.4 ("If information taken from a
source outside the resource itself is supplied in any of the elements listed
below, indicate that fact either by means of a note or by some other means
(e.g., through coding or the use of square brackets).") only applies for
Other Title Information when it comes from the same source as the Title
Proper and that source is outside the resource itself, i.e., both types of
information come from the same source, that is not the resource itself.
If we cannot then consider this information as Other Title Information,
because it is not in conjunction with the Title Proper, then I could see
where the Variant Title scope could apply: "A variant title is a title
associated with a resource that differs from a title recorded as the title
proper, a parallel title proper, other title information, parallel other
title information, earlier title proper, later title proper, key title, or
abbreviated title", i.e., if you have title information that is not recorded
as one of those title elements listed, give it as a Variant Title.
And then, under 2.20.2 Note on Title, we have "Make a note on the source or
basis for a variant title (see 2.3.6.3), ... if it is considered important
for identification or access."
So now, unless someone comes up with yet another twist to this, I will say,
"If what looks like Other Title Information is found on a different source
than the Title Proper, enter it as a Variant Title, if it is considered
important for identification or access (i.e., if you think someone might
want to search by it) and add a note on the source or basis for that Variant
Title, if it is considered important"
This will result in:
Minus MARC:
Variant Title: ...
Note on Title: Variant title from cover.
MARC:
246 1 # $i Variant title from cover: $a ...
Deborah
- - - - - - - -
Deborah Fritz
TMQ, Inc.
debo...@marcofquality.com
www.marcofquality.com
--
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
