Taking both rules into account, I think what it's saying is to identify the statement of responsibility for the title proper when there are statements of resp. in multiple languages by choosing the statement of responsibility in the same language as the title proper. The remaining statements of responsibility in the other languages then become the "parallel statements of responsibility." But remember that only the one statement of responsibility identified in 2.4.2.4. is core; the parallel statements of responsibility are optional. Whew!
Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation Catalog & Metada Services Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu<mailto:steven.arak...@yale.edu> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 4:12 PM To: rd...@listserv.lac-BAC.G Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 2.4.3.3 Parallel statements of responsibility As I just said: It's really not well presented. But now I see that it's even worse than I thought. I still believe that 2.4.2.4 is all about deciding which statement(s) is/are the "normal" ones, when you're confronted with statements in different languages. Once you've managed that, you can go on to 2.4.3 to handle the others. But 2.4.2.4 makes it sound as if _all_ the statements are "statements of responsibility relating to title proper", so one wonders why they can't be all recorded in the "statement of responsibiity relating to title proper" element. But according to 2.4.3.1 we find that only one of them can be recorded in this element, whereas the others have to be recorded as "parallel statement of responsibility relating to title proper." I've just read 2.4.3.1 again, veeerrry slowly: "A parallel statement of responsibility relating to title proper is a statement of responsibility relating to title proper (see 2.4.2.1) in a language and/or script that differs from that recorded in the statement of responsibility relating to title proper element." So now: Is such a thing a statement of responsibility relating to title proper??? Well, it seems that it is and it isn't. Curiouser and curiouser... Heidrun Ben wrote: Hm, now I'm getting confused. 2.4.2.4 applies to "a statement of responsibility relating to title proper [that] appears on the source of information in more than one language". But the scope statement to 2.4.3 defines "parallel statement of responsibility" as "a statement of responsibility relating to title proper (see 2.4.2.1) in a language and/or script that differs from that recorded in the statement of responsibility relating to title proper element". Is it just me, or do they seem to be talking about the same thing? Or is 2.4.3ff limited to cases where you already have parallel titles AND parallel s-o-r's? (On a closer look, it's not--2.4.3.2 says, "If there is no corresponding parallel title proper, take parallel statements of responsibility relating to title proper from the same source as the title proper" so clearly it also applies to situations where there is no parallel title proper, only parallel statements of responsibility.) So, what's going on here?? --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Arakawa, Steven Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 3:36 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca<mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 2.4.3.3 Parallel statements of responsibility If you have a single title proper and statements of responsibility in multiple languages, I think 2.4.2.4. applies: "If a statement of responsibility relating to title proper appears on the source of information in more than one language or script, record the statement in the language or script of the title proper. If this criterion does not apply, record the statement that appears first." The examples are helpful. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation Catalog & Metada Services Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu<mailto:steven.arak...@yale.edu> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 3:06 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 2.4.3.3 Parallel statements of responsibility No parallel title, just the s-o-r's. And certainly the "mit" should not be capitalized (and isn't on the piece) that was my mistake. I don't know if there's a character limit in OCLC or not. But there is a character limit to my brain, so I'm going to use the optional omission. :) Thanks, Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 3:07 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca<mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 2.4.3.3 Parallel statements of responsibility I'm afraid so, only I think it should start with "mit" instead of "Mit" ("mit" being a preposition which is not ordinarily capitalized). What a lovely example - I'm thrilled ;-) If you really were to transcribe all the 89 names (not once, but twice), I wonder whether there might be technical problems with the maximum field length for 245. Or is there no such limit in American library systems? I know that in Germany there are library systems which - at least at the moment - wouldn't be able to cope with statements this long. Deborah is right about keeping together statements in the same language according to ISBD. Is there also a parallel title? Then it would look marginally nicer: Title proper : other title information / mit Beiträgen von Fernando Aguiar [and 88 others] ; hg. von X = Parallel title proper : parallel other title information / with contributions by Fernando Aguiar [and 88 others] ; ed. by X Heidrun On 01.04.2013 20:17, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote: It makes sense, but it's actually the outcome I was hoping to avoid as this also happens to be a t.p. with an extensive list of contributors (over 80 of them) on the t.p. (And yes, the abbreviations are on the source.) So it would end up looking like this: Mit Beiträgen von Fernando Aguiar [and eighty-eight others] = with contributions by Fernando Aguiar [and eighty-eight others] ?? --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 2:12 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca<mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 2.4.3.3 Parallel statements of responsibility Ben, I think the "/" should indeed be replaced by a "=" according to 1.7.3, as it obviously is a case of parallel statements of responsibility (i.e. two different RDA elements). But I'd find it odd to have only "Mit Beiträgen von" as one of these statements of responsibility. As this is only an introductory phrase, it somehow seems to miss the point. I wonder if we could solve this problem by making use of RDA 1.7.7 "Letters or Words Intended to Be Read More Than Once": "If a letter or word appears only once but the design of the source of information makes it clear that it is intended to be read more than once, repeat the letter or word." Perhaps we could argue that on these title pages, the names are intended to be read twice, once with the German introductory phrase, and a second time with the English introductory phrase. Then you'd have: mit Beiträgen von X, Y, Z = with contributions by X, Y, Z ; hg. von A = ed. by A Does that make sense? Heidrun On 01.04.2013 19:36, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote: When a resource has parallel statements of responsibility on its chief source of information, but only the "connecting words" are parallel, not the names themselves, how does one treat this under RDA? E.g., what I see on the t.p.: Mit Beiträgen von/With contributions by ... hg. von/ed. by ... Is simply transcribing what I see enough, or should the "/" be replaced with " = "? Mit Beiträgen von = With contributions by ... ; hg. von = ed. by .... Thanks, Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -- --------------------- Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi<http://www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi> -- --------------------- Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi<http://www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi> -- --------------------- Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi<http://www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi>
