Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.
The general core statement for statement of responsibility at 2.4 says: Statement of responsibility relating to title proper is a core element. Other statements of responsibility are optional. The core statement for statement of responsibility relating to title proper at 2.4.2 says: If more than one statement of responsibility relating to title proper appears on the source of information, only the first recorded is required. So in your example, only the first statement (the five authors) is required as core. And because that statement lists more than three names, under the option at 2.4.1.5 this could be abbreviated to only one name with an explanation of what was left out, although I should think it wasn't overburdensome to list five names. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept. 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. -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 9:02 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
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
Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.
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
Re: [RDA-L] Compilations
Heidrun quoted:
Related work is a core element for LC for compilations: give a MARC
505 contents note unless the contents are indicated in another part of
the description (e.g., in MARC 245 $a because no collective title is
present).
I can't answer your question about what LC will do.
The above quote has an error; only the first title of a collection
without a collective title is in 245$a; subsequent titles are in
245$b.
We think assigning a collective title is a better way to go.
SLC will make no distinction between first and subesquent titles in
505, for making analytical entries. If LC does not, this means making
additional analytical entries, as well as supplying and tracing
omitted authors.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Corporate authorship; and, Loose-leaf that's not updating
Sevim asked:
1. Where in the RDA Toolkit can I find instructions to help me decide=
whether the corporate body should get a main access point (in a 110) or an=
added access point (710)?
Apart from treaties, I am not aware of any change from AACR2 in 110
vs. 710. This work is not about the association, nor expressing its
findings. conclusions, or official recommendations. So we would have
a 710.
But if you are doing analytics for the various laws, they would have
110s for the legal jurisdiction of each law.
2. There appear to be no instructions in the RDA Toolkit for
the rare situation of a loose leaf that isn't updating.
Our clients would consider it loose-leaf, whether not not it will be
updated by the publisher. It is perhaps dangerous to assume they may
not update it at some point, given the way it was issued? The
purchasing libraries are free to insert additional pages as they like.
We would use:
300 $a1 volume (loose-leaf) ;$c28 cm
The leaves are after all loose-leaf, a narrower interpretation of the
term notwithstanding. The narrower interpretation is a distinction
not obvious to the patron.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.
Don Charles said:
For example if I possess a resource with five authors, two
illustrators, and two editors ... what RDA core requires ...
I've little to add to Heidrun's excellent analysis. If the five
authors are writers of inclusions in a collection, they do not relate
to title proper. As Heidrun pointed out, only the illustrators and
editors are so related. Illustrator(s) and editor(s) could be in
245/$c, with the authors after their respective titles in 505.
Heidrun may not have yet joined Margaret Mann and Judith Hopkins as
cataloguing saints, but she is certainly ready for beatification :-{)}
It is my understanding that if these are in fact joint authors, and
there are more than three in the first statement, you could transcribe
only the first person in each category, but I may be corrected by
Mark.
Greta raises the question of motion picture video statements of
responsibility. She is corrrect that it is difficult. Far better, I
think, is to use 508 and 511 instead, as opposed to dividing
responsible folk between 245/$c and 508.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21
There appears to be a contradiction between the following two instructions:
2.3.1.7. Title Proper--Titles of Parts, Sections, and Supplements
MLA recommendation: Follow LC-PCC PS.
EXAMPLES:
245 00 Musical theatre for classical singers. $p Soprano (p. 8)
AND
2.5.2. Designation of Edition
The most common designations of edition in music resources fall into category
g), a statement indicating ... a particular voice range or format for notated
music.
Treat a statement indicating a particular voice range that is not grammatically
linked to the title, other title information, etc. as a designation of edition,
whether or not it includes the word edition or its equivalent.
EXAMPLES:
250 Tenor. (p.14)
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 3:46 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21 --
Draft open for comment (fwd) (fwd)
Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21.
http://bcc.musiclibraryassoc.org/BCC-Historical/BCC2013/RDA_Best_Practices_for_Music_Cataloging.pdf
Interesting, and a lot of work.
I was surprised to see no examples of $4 relator codes or $e relator
terms.
I was surprised to see examples of 260, when PCC has said that no new
RDA records are to have 260. I was also suprised to see the copyright
symbols used in 260 examples, as opposed to c and p.
I was surprised to see no examples of 336 RDA media content, but
rather examples of 344 and 347. The fact that samples were not in
field tag order, I found confusing.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Connect with Queens Library:
* QueensLibrary.org
http://www.queenslibrary.org/
* Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/queenslibrarynyc
* Twitter
http://www.twitter.com/queenslibrary
* LinkedIn
http://www.linkedin.com/company/queens-library
* Google+
https://plus.google.com/u/0/116278397527253207785
* Foursquare
https://foursquare.com/queenslibrary
* YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/queenslibrary
* Flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/qbpllid/
* Goodreads
http://www.goodreads.com/group/show/58240.Queens_Library
The information contained in this message may be privileged and
confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent
responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
Re: [RDA-L] Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21
Regina-- in this instance the examples for 2.3.1.7 and 2.5.2 are correct. In
the 1st, the Musical theatre for classical singers has unique contents for
each of the voices; the volume for alto (as well as the ones for mezzo, tenor
and bass/baritone) contains a completely different repertoire than that for the
soprano.
Thus, it is different from, as in the 2nd example, an edition for Tenor of the
same music, set for a different voice range in a different edition.
I hope this helps clarify what seems to be a contradiction, but isn't.
Regards,
Rick McRae
Catalog / Reference Librarian
Sibley Music Library
Eastman School of Music
(585) 274-1370
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Shapiro, Regina
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 4:47 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21
There appears to be a contradiction between the following two instructions:
2.3.1.7. Title Proper--Titles of Parts, Sections, and Supplements MLA
recommendation: Follow LC-PCC PS.
EXAMPLES:
245 00 Musical theatre for classical singers. $p Soprano (p. 8)
AND
2.5.2. Designation of Edition
The most common designations of edition in music resources fall into category
g), a statement indicating ... a particular voice range or format for notated
music.
Treat a statement indicating a particular voice range that is not grammatically
linked to the title, other title information, etc. as a designation of edition,
whether or not it includes the word edition or its equivalent.
EXAMPLES:
250 Tenor. (p.14)
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 3:46 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21 --
Draft open for comment (fwd) (fwd)
Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21.
http://bcc.musiclibraryassoc.org/BCC-Historical/BCC2013/RDA_Best_Practices_for_Music_Cataloging.pdf
Interesting, and a lot of work.
I was surprised to see no examples of $4 relator codes or $e relator terms.
I was surprised to see examples of 260, when PCC has said that no new RDA
records are to have 260. I was also suprised to see the copyright symbols used
in 260 examples, as opposed to c and p.
I was surprised to see no examples of 336 RDA media content, but rather
examples of 344 and 347. The fact that samples were not in field tag order, I
found confusing.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Connect with Queens Library:
* QueensLibrary.org
http://www.queenslibrary.org/
* Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/queenslibrarynyc
* Twitter
http://www.twitter.com/queenslibrary
* LinkedIn
http://www.linkedin.com/company/queens-library
* Google+
https://plus.google.com/u/0/116278397527253207785
* Foursquare
https://foursquare.com/queenslibrary
* YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/queenslibrary
* Flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/qbpllid/
* Goodreads
http://www.goodreads.com/group/show/58240.Queens_Library
The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential
and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
Re: [RDA-L] Compilations
I read it to mean an analytical access point will be made only when it represents a substantial part of the resource and I would consider Festschriften to be included in the similar resources. -- John Hostage Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services Langdell Hall 194 Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) -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: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 02:12 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Compilations In one of the last mails in the statement of responsibility thread, I had posed a question about the LC practice for collections of essays and such like. Probably, many people had already dropped out of that thread (admittedly, it went on rather long...), so I didn't get any reaction. That's why I'm re-sending my question here: I'm not quite sure whether I've correctly understood LC's practice for compilations, as documented in LC-PCC PS for 25.1: Related work is a core element for LC for compilations: give a MARC 505 contents note unless the contents are indicated in another part of the description (e.g., in MARC 245 $a because no collective title is present). There is no limit on the number of works in the contents note unless burdensome. For compilations of works, give an analytical authorized access point for the predominant or first work in the compilation when it represents a substantial part of the resource. Disregard contributions such as a preface or introductory chapter. Generally, do not apply this core element to anthologies of poetry, hymnals, conference proceedings, journals, collections of interviews or letters, and similar resources. Does that mean that LC will (in addition to a contents note) _always_ make a name-title entry for the first work (apart from introductions and such like) in a compilation which doesn't fall under the exception? E.g. for a festschrift, would there now always be a name-title entry for the essay which happens to come first in the book (quite independent of the fact whether the authors of the individual works are named on the t.p. or not)? Or would that only be done if the essay in question really makes up a substantial part of the book (which wouldn't be the case, presumably, if there were 58 essays in the volume)? Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.
Thomas posted:
written by Joe Smith and edited by Bob Turner
one would have to treat that as the first statement of responsibility
according to RDA 2.4.1.5, even though there are two functions being
performed.
But if one is confronted with
written by Joe Smith
edited by Bob Turner
then those are two separate statements of responsibility and only the
first statement is a core element in RDA.
A clear explication, but this distinction, like the one concerning
noun phrases, is irrelevant to access. In both cases illustrated
above, the importance of the persons for access is no different, and
the distinction will not affect what SLC transcribes and traces.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
