Thomas,
If I understand your reasoning correctly, your main concern is with the
case of transcribing selected names from further down the list (which,
as I've tried to explain, I would see as an exception and not as the
rule). I see what you mean, although I still think that it wouldn't be
much of a problem for our users as long as something like "[and 38
others]" makes it clear that the statement is not complete.
But you haven't mentioned the case from which the whole discussion
originated: The question whether it should be allowed to transcribe e.g.
"with contributions by A, B, C, D [and 16 others]" instead of "with
contributions by A [and 19 others]", with A, B, C and D being the first
names in the list. Do you see problems there as well?
I'd argue that the first version meets the principle of representation
better than the second.
Heidrun
On 07.02.2013 19:50, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
Perhaps, but one should always refer back to the RDA objectives and
principles, and FRBR/FRAD user tasks.
At one point in RDA development, the statement of responsibility was
not going to be considered a core element. It was added back in as a
core element. The core element set’s primary concern is the Identify
user task, where resources have to be sufficiently differentiated from
each other. The statement of responsibility also has utility in
confirming that the resource sought is the one that matches the search
criteria.
RDA’s principle of representation (RDA 0.4.3.4) says that the data
describing a resource should reflect the resource’s representation of
itself.
I think a highly elliptical statement, with names selected here and
there, might violate the principle of representation, as people also
match that statement of responsibility as recorded with what is on the
resource.
And if not all names are to be recorded even in a note, it seems best
to accompany the recording of those select names with a brief
explanation. It seems easier to just list names in a note, separated
by commas, then to have an awkward-looking statement of responsibility
filled with gaps and unexplained appearances of some names and not others.
Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library
*From:*Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Heidrun
Wiesenmüller
*Sent:* February-07-13 1:39 PM
*To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than
three persons etc.
Thomas Brenndorfer wrote:
AACR2 also says “not named in a statement of responsibility” but
its application extended to situations when all but the first
named in a transcribed statement of responsibility were omitted.
Thanks for this information; I didn't know that.
Nonetheless, the idea doesn't really appeal to me. In the RAK rules,
there is a very basic principle which says that notes are normally
used only to give information which is not apparent from the rest of
the bibliographic description. I think this is a sound idea.
True, if we choose not to transcribe a name in a s-o-r, then this
information isn't apparent from the rest of the bibliographic
description, so we could give it in a note. But I'd still say it would
be better to amend the s-o-r instead of using a note as some sort of
"workaround".
Heidrun
--
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi <http://www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi>
--
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
