The "first" statement of responsibility is not always easy to determine--for many books there is something standing at the head of title position and something else physically following the title. Which of those is first? Cataloger judgement? What if the one at the head of the title is a logo or graphic of some sort?
The statement of responsibility for videos is particularly problematic, since as Heidrun points out in 2.4.2.3, not all statements are recorded and it's not really clear from that rule which statements one should record. According to Appendix I, the only "creators" of moving image works are screenwriters. Producers, directors, production companies, and directors of photography are "contributors." The "first" name on the credits is almost never the screenwriter. And it depends on whether "first" may precede the title or whether it has to follow it. The typical pattern for a commercial feature is: Distribution company Production company A, B, C, D in association with company E, F, G, John Doe, with support from company H, I, presents Actor 1, Actor 2, Actor 3, Actor 4, Actor 5 actor 6 in Title A bunch more actor names A bunch of technical crew Editor Director of photography and a bunch of other folks Producer John Doe, Jane Smith, James Jones Executive producer bunches of associate producers screenwriter director So, is my first statement the distribution company? Production company A,B,C,D? That statement plusc the "in association" statement? How about the support statement? Or do i just jump to what's after the title? In which case is the first statement the director of photography because that role is the first named after the title that's associated with the "work"? Or do i just jump to screenwriter because he's the first creator? And remember that there's a rule that a "presents" statement preceding the title is title information that is introductory in nature so you don't transcribe it as part of the title, but if you feel you want to record it you do so as a variant title (2.3.1.6). That implies to me that it is not considered a statement of responsibility. However, practically speaking, if there are too many names interposed between the "presents" and the title, it's impractical to record as a variant title and feels more like a statement of responsibility to me, but perhaps i'm just stretching the rules here. Most video catalogers i know try to include everything, which is extremely burdensome and, frankly i think a poor use of one's time. Personally, i try to do the first and put the rest in the 508. I'll usually go with the production company, though when the title is followed by a "by" or "a film by" statement i usually go with that. I suspect that every cataloger's reading of the rules will be different. Anybody else working on videos want to comment on your reading of the rules? Video games are problematic as well, as the disc label and container usually contain no formal statement of responsibility, just a plethora of logos of various companies whose functions are not given. You may need to go to a third party resource like allgame.com or mobygames.com to figure out who did what. Or you can look in the booklet and it might have a big bunch of programmer credits at the end, but nothing that looks like an overall statement naming a "creator" whatever that is in the context of a video game. Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries ----- Original Message ----- From: "Heidrun Wiesenmüller" <wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 9:02:29 AM Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc. I agree with Ben, but would like to point out that the rule about which statement of responsibility is "core" can get more complicated than just saying "it's always the first one". RDA 2.4.2.3 says: "If not all statements of responsibility appearing on the source or sources of information are being recorded, give preference to those identifying creators of the intellectual or artistic content. In case of doubt, record the first statement." In the case mentioned, if the five authors are the creators of the work (i.e. if the work is a collaboration), then obviously the statement of responsibility naming those five is the "core" one, because it identyfies the creators of the intellectual content. But if you have a compilation, and the five persons are e.g. authors of essays in a collection (which brings us back to my example of a festschrift), it gets tricky. In this case, I'd argue that there is no statement identifying the creators of the work as a whole (as the compilation itself doesn't have creators), but only one naming the creators of the works contained (the individual essays). Personally, I would then think of the statement naming the editors as the "core" one here, and not the one listing the authors of the essays. But you might also argue that, as things obviously get doubtful, you can solve the problem by simply taking the first s-o-r as the "core" one. On the other hand, you might also argue that although the authors of the essays aren't the creators of the work as a whole, they are still "creators of the intellectual or artistic content", and so according to 2.4.2.3 must be preferred. This sounds awfully complicated (maybe I'm just thinking too hard). And you must think that I'm obsessed with collections of essays... But they do turn up in cataloging, and I would really like to know how we should handle them. Heidrun Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote: > RDA treats each "function" as a separate statement (see 2.4.1.6). > > My reading of the "core note" to 2.4.2 (Statement of responsibility relating > to title proper) is that for "core", only the first statement of > responsibility is required: " If more than one statement of responsibility > relating to title proper appears on the source of information, only the first > recorded is required." > > So if you had a book with five authors, two illustrators, and two editors > (e.g. three statement of responsibility) you would only be required by "core" > to record the first (the authors). You would further be allowed, according > to the Optional Omission to 2.4.1.5 to record only the first author and > summarize the remaining, e.g.: by John Smith [and four others]. > > --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 Don Charuk > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 11:02 AM > To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three > persons etc. > > We have been just debating this point recently and have reached in impasse on > interpreting the omission options. For example if I possess a resource with > five authors, two illustrators, and two editors RDA instructs me to > transcribe all information according to rules 2.4.1.4-2.4.1.6. Therefore, I > would include all the above mentioned persons in my statement of > responsibility related to my title proper. However, we view this as > increasing the workload for our cataloguers and situation that we wish to > avoid. Hence we are looking at the what RDA core requires. My follow > cataloguers and I disagree on what is considered core and the application of > the omission options. Without going into a long list of scenarios could the > list members provide a definitive interpretation on what RDA core requires in > the above example. > > Don Charuk > Cataloguer > Toronto Public Library -- --------------------- Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
