-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
-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
-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
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
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
Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 3:03 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons
etc.
I think we're all
Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 3:03 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three
persons etc.
I think we're all agreed that transcribing
@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons
etc.
Does it help for collocating works under the same person? I think that this is
the significance of distinguishing creators from contributors.
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System
Roslyn Smith suggested:
Madeleine Albright [and 57 others including Carla Del Ponte and
Joschka Fischer].
Great idea! But note that this would apply only to joint authors of a
work. Authors of parts in a collection go after their titles in a
contents note. The collection itself is entered
Heidrun,
I agree - it's not clear. I'm not sure there's anything better than to
transcribe the first name and then make a note about any other significant
creators that you want to provide access points for. Something along the
lines of:
245 / by John Smith [and 15 others]
500 Other
-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons
etc.
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
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
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: Thursday, February 07, 2013 2:30 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three
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
-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons
etc.
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
Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 9:59 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons
etc.
An example
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
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 11:19 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons
etc.
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
: Thursday, February 07, 2013 11:50 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons
etc.
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
: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three
persons etc.
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
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
, February 07, 2013 12:33 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons
etc.
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
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
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
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
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
After all this talk about German cataloging, I suppose it's time to get
back to RDA ;-)
The other day we discussed the optional omission for statements of
responsibility naming more than three persons, etc. (RDA 2.4.1.5). The
general feeling was that although everybody ought to try and follow
You can do exactly what you suggested with RDA. - Barbara Tillett
On Wednesday, February 6, 2013, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:
After all this talk about German cataloging, I suppose it's time to get
back to RDA ;-)
The other day we discussed the optional omission for statements of
-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.
After all this talk about German cataloging, I suppose it's time to get back to
RDA ;-)
The other day we discussed the optional omission for statements of
responsibility naming more than three persons, etc. (RDA
Barbara,
I can??? Now this is a pleasant surprise.
Only I'm not sure where it says so in the rules. The optional omission
in 2.4.1.5 explicitly states omit all but the first of each group.
I've noted that the optional omission in 2.4.1.4 says Always record the
first name appearing in a
of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
[wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 4:36 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons
etc.
Barbara,
I can??? Now this is a pleasant surprise.
Only I'm not sure where it says so
Heidrun said:
But I'm not happy that the only alternatives are either all names
(standard rule) or only the first name (option). Why shouldn't it be
equally possible to transcribe, say, the first three, five or ten names
and then put [and x others]? This might be a more satisfactory way of
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
Barbara B. Tillett
On Feb 6, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Dear RDA-L people,
After an email conversation with Barbara, I'm writing with some additional
information, making the distinction between transcribing information in a
statement of responsibility and giving authorized access points for
responsible entities. [Barbara is traveling and typing long
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 correlation between
40 matches
Mail list logo
