I wonder if the statement would read better if we punctuated it differently, e.g.:
"edited by J. Garland (Cambridge Carbonates UK), J.E. Neilson (University of Aberdeen, UK), S.E. Laubach (University of Texas at Austin, USA) and K.J. Whidden (USGS, USA)" This might actually do a much better job of conveying the essence of what's on the source of information, using punctuation marks to take over the function that typography and/or layout probably played. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 1:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4 Do people really think "edited by J. Garland, Cambridge Carbonates UK, J.E. Neilson, University of Aberdeen, UK, S.E. Laubach, University of Texas at Austin, USA and K.J. Whidden, USGS, USA" is more helpful and unambiguous to users than, "edited by J. Garland, J.E. Neilson, S.E. Laubach, and K.J. Whidden"? To me at least the former looks like a mix of individuals and corporate bodies. And that is what 2.4.1.4 without the optional omission (which, unfortunately, LC and PCC don't seem to like) leads to. --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137
