Barbara Tillett wrote:
You are right the rules do not specifically say you can do it, but it
is definitely in the spirit of RDA and perhaps you'd like to work with
Christine Frodl to propose an adjustment to the way RDA states this? -
Barbara
I'll certainly discuss this with Christine Frodl
Referring to the statement that many libraries are planning to strip off $4
and/or $e ..., are you saying that the subfields would be entered in
cataloging and then suppressed? Just wanted to understand.
Thanks,
Rita Lifton
Library of The Jewish Theological Seminary
New York, NY
-Original
Mac wrote:
However, you can choose which entities to include in 7XX authorized access
points in a MARC bibliographic record; those access points do not need to
be justified in a transcribed element or by a note.
This is my major argument with RDA. If revising, please consider
restoring
My reading is that there is an option to use 500 and/or 775 instead of the
using the preferred title in 240, and that the option was taken.
- Original Message -
From: McRae, Rick
Date: Thursday, February 7, 2013 10:20 am
Subject: [RDA-L] anomaly in LC RDA training module?
To:
I think it is a mistake to strip out those relator codes. Instead you can
choose not to include $4 and $e in your indexing rules if you want to avoid a
split file.
And I'm all for using the relator codes to indicate the relationship and to
skip the statement of responsibility. The CONSER
do we feel it would be necessary to indicate that there are seven other names
between Albright and Del Ponte, and another six between Del Ponte and Fischer?
Since the RDA instruction is to record not transcribe* the s-o-r, I see no
reason why we would need to add multiple summariz[ations of]
Ben Abrahamse wrote:
* Though now, looking at RDA 2.4. again, I'm not 100% sure it's saying to
record. The heading for instruction 2.4.1.4 is Recording statements of
responsibility but the first sentence in the instruction is, Transcribe a
statement of responsibility.
In RDA, all of the
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: February-07-13 11:19 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more
If we were expected to transcribe the statement of responsibility, not just
record it, the use of the mark of omission would make perfect sense. Yet, the
two Optional Omission instructions under 2.4.1.4 seem to suggest that mark of
omission in S-o-Rs has been denigrated under RDA.
In what sense does RDA suggest that SoRs are recorded and not transcribed?
RDA 2.4.1.4 (Recording Statements of Responsibility) says, Transcribe a
statement of responsibility in the form in which it appears on the source of
information. Apply the general guidelines on transcription given under
I would take Thomas's solution. It makes the 245 field consistent and neat.
Also, we can supply access points for other important persons. So users are
able to search them. My personal opinion.
Thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Brenndorfer,
Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:
If we were expected to transcribe the statement of responsibility, not just
record it, the use of the mark of omission would make perfect sense. Yet, the
two Optional Omission instructions under 2.4.1.4 seem to suggest that mark of
omission in S-o-Rs has been
The idea of cherry picking who to include and who to exclude from the
statement of responsibility really makes me uncomfortable. The idea of
relevancy is very subjective depending on context, library, etc. Remember
you can always pull out additional creators/access points LOCALLY as needed.
If
In what sense does RDA suggest that SoRs are recorded and not transcribed?
RDA 2.4.1.4 (Recording Statements of Responsibility) says, Transcribe a
statement of responsibility in the form in which it appears on the source of
information. Apply the general guidelines on transcription given under
I think that LCC-PCC PS is an option for omitting more than three names.
There should be an alternative for omitting how many names. Apparently
cataloging agencies can have a choice. Once a local decision has been made,
it should be consistently applied across records.
I am learning from
Shana McDanold wrote:
I really like your suggested local policy:
(...)
Permission to suggest it for local use at my institution?
Absolutely :-)
Heidrun
--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr.
If the point is to transcribe then I don't see how one could accurately
transcribe the first, sixth, and fifteenth names without some indication that you've
omitting names in between. One could do this perhaps using ellipses:
/ by John Smith ... Robert Jones ... Louise Jefferson [and 13
Felicity Dykes said:
From CONSER standard record documentation, 07/22/2010: 245 $c: It
is not required to transcribe a statement of responsibility of any
kind in field 245 $c.
For items of mixed responsibility we do not record a 245/$c, but added
entries are justified in notes, e.g., for DVDs
Rita Lifton asked:
Referring to the statement that many libraries are planning to strip
off $4 and/or $e ..., are you saying that the subfields would be
?entered in cataloging and then suppressed? Just wanted to understand.
When SLC begins RDA cataloguing (when a majority of derived records
are
Thomas said:
One could choose the optional omission and supply the element Note on
Statement of Responsibility (RDA 2.20.3) -- ... a note providing
information on a person, family or corporate body not named in the
statement of responsibility ...
SLC has been doing that for years for such things
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
A question I asked myself this morning about these relater codes.
If a patron, enters a personal name and is given the name, plus, author,
editor, compiler, etc. options, I wonder if the patron will say to
him/herself, Geez, was he the author, or was he just the compiler. Gee,
maybe I should go
Adam,
I think the problem with this solution is that it's not so easy to
interpret: The marks of omission certainly show where names have been
left out. But it's not so clear how many names there really were in the
list on the source of information: What about the omitted names which
are
23 matches
Mail list logo
