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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
