Re: [RDA-L] Author affiliations
Stan Allen sal...@socialaw.com wrote: Does RDA expect us to add more than author names to the 245, such as Esq., PH.D., Dr. and even the law firm lawyers are members of at the time the book is written? If the info is part of the statement of responsibility as found on the piece, the default RDA rule is to write out what's on the piece. RDA also offers the option to cull the herd and post an abridged SOR (a la AACR2). Instructions under RDA 2.4.1.4 if you have the rulebook. An example of a record that has caused me confusion is a pcc record cataloged by LC in OCLC, Trial techniques trials. I have seen similar records and am now unsure what is proper procedure. Is the general practice to enter authors in the 245 much as we did in AACRII? Whereas RDA's fine with either approach, LC and the PCC have the policy: Generally do not abridge a statement of responsibility. http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp2target=lcps2-91187#lcps2-91187 Note the wiggle-room with Generally. Whether you want to follow their lead for your own (original) cataloging is a local decision. I've seen roughly 50/50 split in records between those who fully transcribe and those who abridge. By the way, OCLC #825648041 has a fine example of an unjustified related title added entry. No note, no designator explaining why the 700 is around, though I guess it's the title of earlier editions. Someone in-the-know could invoke RDA 25.2/26.2 or clear up the matter in some other way. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] Author affiliations
We have established a decision here to add titles, degrees, certifications, etc., as a means for patrons to judge the reliability of the authors. We are not, however going to add what I refer to as their 'current job titles/place of employment'. Kathie Kathleen Goldfarb Technical Services Librarian College of the Mainland Texas City, TX 77539 409 933 8202 P Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of M. E. Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 9:54 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Author affiliations Stan Allen sal...@socialaw.com wrote: Does RDA expect us to add more than author names to the 245, such as Esq., PH.D., Dr. and even the law firm lawyers are members of at the time the book is written? If the info is part of the statement of responsibility as found on the piece, the default RDA rule is to write out what's on the piece. RDA also offers the option to cull the herd and post an abridged SOR (a la AACR2). Instructions under RDA 2.4.1.4 if you have the rulebook. An example of a record that has caused me confusion is a pcc record cataloged by LC in OCLC, Trial techniques trials. I have seen similar records and am now unsure what is proper procedure. Is the general practice to enter authors in the 245 much as we did in AACRII? Whereas RDA's fine with either approach, LC and the PCC have the policy: Generally do not abridge a statement of responsibility. http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp2target=lcps2-91187 #lcps2-91187 Note the wiggle-room with Generally. Whether you want to follow their lead for your own (original) cataloging is a local decision. I've seen roughly 50/50 split in records between those who fully transcribe and those who abridge. By the way, OCLC #825648041 has a fine example of an unjustified related title added entry. No note, no designator explaining why the 700 is around, though I guess it's the title of earlier editions. Someone in-the-know could invoke RDA 25.2/26.2 or clear up the matter in some other way. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] Author affiliations
Stan Allen asked:
Does RDA expect us to add more than author names to the 245, such as
Esq., PH.D., Dr. and even the law firm lawyers are members of at the
time the book is written?
Yes. But some omit institutional affiliations, since they can be
mistaken for responsible bodies. Others transcribe them in
parentheses, in an attempt to avoid the confusion.
Some terms such as Jr. may be added in $c of the authority, thus in
100/600/700.
SLC will omit institutional affiliations in original records, add
parentheses in derived records, and transcribe other terms.
I'm all for saving our cataloguers work in transcription, but
hesitate to remove data keyed by others.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Author
I rather agree with Adam. In my earlier years as a cataloger, we catalogued a lot of missionary materials. While the publisher was not due an 1XX, it certainly, in some cases was due a 7XX; it is was the issuing body and in some way caused it to be emanated for its own interests. We did not do that for every one of these publications from missionary societies, but it did offer an important point of access. Gene Fieg Claremont School of Theology Cataloger, Nov. 10, 2011 On 11/9/11, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.edu wrote: We intend to use one word relator terms only, in this case, issuer. RDA's issuing body seems more acurate than author to me for conferences, symposia, and law reform commissions, among others. Mac Except that the designator issuing body is not used for the creator of a work. issuing body is one of the relationship designators that is to be used for other persons, families, or corporate bodies associated with a work. That is, they are associated with the work but they are not considered creators of it. In AACR2 terms, these entities could not be given main entry because they are not creators of works. In RDA terms, their names would not be used when constructing the preferred access point for a work. Perhaps a clearer example is the director of a film. The director in AACR2 or RDA could almost never be recorded in the 1XX field. (The very rare exception is when a single person is individually responsible for the conception and execution of all aspects of the film. In which case the creator relationship designator filmmaker is used.) Since conferences are considered to be creators, you are supposed to pick a relationship designator from among those used for creators (Appendix I.2.1). Choosing issuing body for this relationship in RDA is just plain wrong, since it comes from I.2.2, the list for entities associated with a work other than creators. In the absence of a more specific term in I.2.1, I continue to maintain that author is the correct designator. Respectfully, Adam ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger* * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * asch...@u.washington.edu * ** -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu
