Thomas,
I think we're all agreed that transcribing all names in a statement of
responsibility is preferable to any kinds of shortening the statement.
I'm not so sure about your argument that the first name in such a list
is of special importance as a potential part of the access point of the
work. Although in RDA there can be more than three creators, my gut
feeling is that we won't see too many cases with more than, say, five
creators. Such lists can and should be completely transcribed. If you
come upon a very long list of names, I believe it will (at least in the
area of textual works) typically be for people who have written an essay
or a chapter in a collection. The example I cited, for example, was a
festschrift. So the persons in these lists are not creators of the work
as a whole, but only creators of their own essay. Consequently, the
first one mentioned would not be part of the access point for the work
as a whole. This kind of list also tends to be arranged alphabetically,
so there is really no indication that the first-mentioned person has
contributed in a more important way than the others. It's just the
person whose name happens to come first in an alphabetical order.
Heidrun
On 07.02.2013 21:35, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
Including the sequence of the first few named and then truncating the
statement with [and x others] seems like a reasonable and flexible option.
But I do view the use of [and x others] as itself violating the
principle of representation, and perhaps that is why the LC-PCC PS has
indicated that they will not generally use the optional omission.
The first named does have a connection with the name potentially used
in the authorized access point for the work, so there is a stronger
reason for the first named versus the second named. The access point
for that first named is also a core element (essentially, this is how
RDA restates the main entry rule—as in AACR2, one name is more
important than others, and receives a spot in the 100 field).
As for the others that are named, I would be more comfortable
transcribing the entire statement. In those exceptional cases with a
huge number of names, it seems to me that potentially none of the
names are that important (except the first named which might be used
in the authorized access point), or that only select names would be
useful for the users of the library, and so I would more comfortable
putting those in a note, likely with some explanation as to why I
pulled those specific names out of the statement of responsibility.
I don’t see much discernible value in setting an arbitrary cut-off—if
given a choice between transcribing a full statement of responsibility
and making authority records for the first four or five names I would
likely choose transcribing the whole statement of responsibility as
more useful, if only for keyword searching. There might even be some
workflow logic to that in that authorized access points can be added
later if needed and the statement of responsibility wouldn’t have to
be adjusted with some other arbitrary cut-off.
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 3:11 PM
*To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than
three persons etc.
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
<mailto: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 <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
