"In what sense does RDA suggest that SoRs are "recorded" and not "transcribed"? RDA 2.4.1.4 (Recording Statements of Responsibility) says, "Transcribe a statement of responsibility in the form in which it appears on the source of information. Apply the general guidelines on transcription given under 1.7. --Kathy Glennan"
Fair enough, they are transcribed. I'm still just wrapping my head around the fact that, after being told numerous times that there is a difference between "recording" and "transcribing" under RDA, the latter is actually a subspecies of the former. (The same way, in serials cataloging, we sometimes talk about "serials" and "journals" as two different things when "journal" is just a specific type of serial.) Still, the transcription guidelines under 1.7 do not discuss how to omit information. That appears, as Heidrun points out, only to apply to particular elements (mainly in the title). The assumption seems to have been that catalogers will never want or need to omit information anywhere other than in those specific instances. "So I'd vote for a solution like this: - transcribe the first name - transcribe other names, which you want to give, in the order in which they appear in the statement of responsibility - do not indicate if you've left out other names between the ones transcribed - instead summarize what was left out at the end -- Heidrun Wiesenmüller" I think I agree with this. It's practical. People with more descriptive needs (rare book, for example) may not. This strikes me as a practice of last resort, when you are faced with an extensive S-o-R and additional local requirements (for example: your library wants to record/trace people associated with your institution no matter where they appear in the s-o-r). --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:33 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc. Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote: > If we were expected to transcribe the statement of responsibility, not just > record it, the use of the mark of omission would make perfect sense. Yet, > the two Optional Omission instructions under 2.4.1.4 seem to suggest that > mark of omission in S-o-Rs has been denigrated under RDA. Marks of omission don't seem to be totally outlawed in RDA, but they are certainly much reduced. We are still allowed to use them when abridging titles (2.3.1.4, optional omission), in title of series (2.12.2.3, exception), and for celestial cartographic content (7.4.4.3). > But taking a step back, and trying to think about it from the user's > perspective: does it matter to your typical user that they know where > the omission occurs, or just that there has been an omission (in which > case, if they need to see the whole s-o-r for some reason they will > need to obtain the piece)? Honestly I don't know. :) Personally, I think it would be o.k. not to indicate exactly where the omission (or the omissions) occurs. This might be more confusing than helpful. So I'd vote for a solution like this: - transcribe the first name - transcribe other names, which you want to give, in the order in which they appear in the statement of responsibility - do not indicate if you've left out other names between the ones transcribed - instead summarize what was left out at the end Heidrun -- --------------------- Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
