I think you are right. The last option in RDA is a melding of AACR2 and RDA. The original omission of "Dr.", for instance, had to do with the fact that the title did not add very much to essence of the area of responsibility (essence is a word may not be quite the correct word here).
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 8:10 AM, Meehan, Thomas <t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk> wrote: > Dear all,**** > > > This is a fairly novice question but one where I would welcome some > clarification, especially as far as the RDA text goes. Apologies if this > has been raised before (I’m sure it must have been). I am looking at a > couple of contentious aspects of the statement of responsibility relating > to the title proper where I think there are three areas that require some > decision on policy:**** > > **1. **Which (or how many) statements of responsibility are to be > regarded as core.**** > > **2. **Statements of responsibility naming more than three persons > (2.4.1.5).**** > > **3. **Abridging statements of responsibility (2.4.1.4).**** > > ** ** > > It is the third one which confuses me most. The rule states “Transcribe a > statement of responsibility in the form in which it appears on the source > of information.” The examples that follow contain no titles (Mr, Dr, Earl) > except those that would have been retained under AACR2 and no affiliations > (…professor of History at the University of Biggleswade) at all.**** > > ** ** > > However, the Optional Omission beneath which says “Abridge a statement of > responsibility only if it can be abridged without loss of essential > information” has examples with all of this information in, e.g. “by Harry > Smith // Source of information reads: by Dr. Harry Smith”. The option seems > curiously vague about what can/should be omitted if the option is followed, > and why.**** > > ** ** > > Is this basically a case of the examples of the main rule not catching up > and so being illustrative of AACR2 rules rather than RDA? I notice, looking > at the really helpful LC training materials and BL workflow, that the point > is made more explicitly there so I think I am happy with what is intended, > but I am uncomfortable having to interpret the meaning of a rule based on > third party training and policy documentation, if that makes sense.**** > > ** ** > > Many thanks,**** > > ** ** > > Tom**** > > ** ** > > ---**** > > ** ** > > Thomas Meehan**** > > Head of Current Cataloguing**** > > Library Services**** > > University College London**** > > Gower Street**** > > London WC1E 6BT**** > > ** ** > > t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk**** > > ** ** > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
