Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[J. McRee Elrod]

>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 transcription and access points.

If not justified, one is dependent on $4code or $eterm to know the
relationship of the traced person to the manifestation being
described.  Many libraries are planning to strip off $4 and/or $e to
avoid split files.

I would prefer that the option to omit persons has one transcribe at
least three, not one, for each function.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[JSC Secretary]

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 messages on her
phone is not easy.)

RDA doesn't say you can choose what you give in the statement of
responsibility for the title proper.  The basic instruction is to
transcribe the complete statement. The optional omission at 2.4.1.5 is the
AACR2 rule:  if more than three, record the first and then a summarizing
phrase.

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.

Also, as Barbara wrote, a change to RDA can be proposed to the JSC.

Regards, Judy Kuhagen
JSC Secretary


On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:13 PM, 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
>
> Barbara B. Tillett
>
> On Feb 6, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller <
> wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote:
>
>  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 statement". This sounds as if it were possible to
> leave out e.g. all names after the fifth. But on the other hand there is an
> explicit reference to 2.4.1.5: "When omitting names from a statement of
> responsibility naming more than three persons, etc., apply the instructions
> given under 2.4.1.5".
>
> Heidrun
>
>
> Am 06.02.2013 22:06, schrieb JSC Chair:
>
> 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
>> responsibility naming more than three persons, etc. (RDA 2.4.1.5). The
>> general feeling was that although everybody ought to try and follow the
>> standard rule (i.e. transcribe all names), it should be possible to use the
>> optional omission for very long lists, if transcribung all names simply
>> cannot be accomplished. I assume that a very similar idea is expressed in
>> the LC-PCC-PS for 2.4.1.5 in the word "generally" ("Generally do not omit
>> names in a statement of responsibility").
>>
>> 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 dealing
>> with longish lists than reducing them to only one name.
>>
>> Of course I'm aware of the fact that the "only first name" rule
>> corresponds to AACR2. But still, I can see no reason why there shouldn't be
>> more flexibility here.
>>
>> Am I the only one who feels like this?
>>
>> Heidrun
>>
>>  --
>> -
>> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
>> Stuttgart Media University
>> Faculty of Information and Communication
>> Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germanywww.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
>>
>>
>
> --
> Dr. Barbara B. Tillett, Ph.D.
> Chair, Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA
>
>
>
> --
> -
> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
> Stuttgart Media University
> Faculty of Information and Communication
> Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germanywww.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
>
>

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Barbara Tillett]

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 
 wrote:

> 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 statement". This sounds as if it were possible 
> to leave out e.g. all names after the fifth. But on the other hand there is 
> an explicit reference to 2.4.1.5: "When omitting names from a statement of 
> responsibility naming more than three persons, etc., apply the instructions 
> given under 2.4.1.5".
> Heidrun
> 
> 
> Am 06.02.2013 22:06, schrieb JSC Chair:
>> 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 
>>> responsibility naming more than three persons, etc. (RDA 
>>> 2.4.1.5). The general feeling was that although everybody ought to try and 
>>> follow the standard rule (i.e. transcribe all names), it should be possible 
>>> to use the optional omission for very long lists, if transcribung all names 
>>> simply cannot be accomplished. I assume that a very similar idea is 
>>> expressed in the LC-PCC-PS for 2.4.1.5 in the word "generally" ("Generally 
>>> do not omit names in a statement of responsibility").
>>> 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 dealing 
>>> with longish lists than reducing them to only one name.
>>> Of course I'm aware of the fact that the "only first name" rule corresponds 
>>> to AACR2. But still, I can see no reason why there shouldn't be more 
>>> flexibility here.
>>> Am I the only one who feels like this?
>>> Heidrun
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> -
>>> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
>>> Stuttgart Media University
>>> Faculty of Information and Communication
>>> Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
>>> www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Dr. Barbara B. Tillett, Ph.D.
>> Chair, Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -
> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
> Stuttgart Media University
> Faculty of Information and Communication
> Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
> www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[J. McRee Elrod]

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 
>dealing with longish lists than reducing them to only one name.

In the case of very long responsibility lists. SLC intends to
transcribe and trace at least the first three in each category.  We
would rarely omit, but if we do, we would use [et # al.] since we
support catalogues with a variety of "languages of the catalogue".

We have not yet set a maximum number to list, but may do so, perhaps
10?


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

I'm relieved to hear Dr Tillett say that this is allowed under RDA.  Sometime 
you run across some truly gargantuan s-o-r's and sadly need to pick and choose 
whom to record.

That said, I agree with Heidrun that neither the rules, as they currently exist 
in the Toolkit, nor the LC/PCC CPS, appear to allow the option to do that.  At 
least not clearly and explicitly.

Perhaps the Optional Omission to 2.4.1.5 text should be changed to:

"If a single statement of responsibility names more than three persons, 
families, or corporate bodies performing the same function, or with the same 
degree of responsibility, omit any but the first of each group of such persons, 
families, or bodies."

Maybe that's something in the works at the JSC?

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] on behalf 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 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 statement". This sounds as if it were possible to leave out 
e.g. all names after the fifth. But on the other hand there is an explicit 
reference to 2.4.1.5: "When omitting names from a statement of responsibility 
naming more than three persons, etc., apply the instructions given under 
2.4.1.5".

Heidrun


Am 06.02.2013 22:06, schrieb JSC Chair:
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 
responsibility naming more than three persons, etc. (RDA 2.4.1.5). The general 
feeling was that although everybody ought to try and follow the standard rule 
(i.e. transcribe all names), it should be possible to use the optional omission 
for very long lists, if transcribung all names simply cannot be accomplished. I 
assume that a very similar idea is expressed in the LC-PCC-PS for 2.4.1.5 in 
the word "generally" ("Generally do not omit names in a statement of 
responsibility").

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 dealing with longish lists 
than reducing them to only one name.

Of course I'm aware of the fact that the "only first name" rule corresponds to 
AACR2. But still, I can see no reason why there shouldn't be more flexibility 
here.

Am I the only one who feels like this?

Heidrun


--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi


--
Dr. Barbara B. Tillett, Ph.D.
Chair, Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA




--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

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 statement". This sounds as if it were possible 
to leave out e.g. all names after the fifth. But on the other hand there 
is an explicit reference to 2.4.1.5: "When omitting names from a 
statement of responsibility naming more than three persons, etc., apply 
the instructions given under 2.4.1.5".


Heidrun



Am 06.02.2013 22:06, schrieb JSC Chair:

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
responsibility naming more than three persons, etc. (RDA 2.4.1.5).
The general feeling was that although everybody ought to try and
follow the standard rule (i.e. transcribe all names), it should be
possible to use the optional omission for very long lists, if
transcribung all names simply cannot be accomplished. I assume
that a very similar idea is expressed in the LC-PCC-PS for 2.4.1.5
in the word "generally" ("Generally do not omit names in a
statement of responsibility").

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 dealing with longish lists than
reducing them to only one name.

Of course I'm aware of the fact that the "only first name" rule
corresponds to AACR2. But still, I can see no reason why there
shouldn't be more flexibility here.

Am I the only one who feels like this?

Heidrun

-- 
-

Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi  



--
Dr. Barbara B. Tillett, Ph.D.
Chair, Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA




--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Joseph, Angelina]

I feel the same. We get a lot of National Business Institute titles, where 
there will be numerous authors most of the time. The names are listed in 
alphabetical order and the person who worked the most on that book might be 
last in the list of authors because of the alphabetization. If we use only the 
1st name, the author who contributed much will be ignored and the one who has 
the least role will get all the credit. So I was happy that with RDA we can 
list all the names.

-- angelina
Angelina Joseph
Cataloging Librarian
Ray & Kay Eckstein Law Library
Marquette University
Milwaukee, WI 53201
Ph: 414-288-5553
Fax: 414-288-5914
email: angelina.jos...@marquette.edu



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 2:49 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-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 2.4.1.5). The general 
feeling was that although everybody ought to try and follow the standard rule 
(i.e. transcribe all names), it should be possible to use the optional omission 
for very long lists, if transcribung all names simply cannot be accomplished. I 
assume that a very similar idea is expressed in the LC-PCC-PS for 2.4.1.5 in 
the word "generally" ("Generally do not omit names in a statement of 
responsibility").

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 dealing with longish lists 
than reducing them to only one name.

Of course I'm aware of the fact that the "only first name" rule corresponds to 
AACR2. But still, I can see no reason why there shouldn't be more flexibility 
here.

Am I the only one who feels like this?

Heidrun

--

-

Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.

Stuttgart Media University

Faculty of Information and Communication

Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany

www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[JSC Chair]

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
> responsibility naming more than three persons, etc. (RDA 2.4.1.5). The
> general feeling was that although everybody ought to try and follow the
> standard rule (i.e. transcribe all names), it should be possible to use the
> optional omission for very long lists, if transcribung all names simply
> cannot be accomplished. I assume that a very similar idea is expressed in
> the LC-PCC-PS for 2.4.1.5 in the word "generally" ("Generally do not omit
> names in a statement of responsibility").
>
> 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 dealing
> with longish lists than reducing them to only one name.
>
> Of course I'm aware of the fact that the "only first name" rule
> corresponds to AACR2. But still, I can see no reason why there shouldn't be
> more flexibility here.
>
> Am I the only one who feels like this?
>
> Heidrun
>
>  --
> -
> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
> Stuttgart Media University
> Faculty of Information and Communication
> Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germanywww.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
>
>

-- 
Dr. Barbara B. Tillett, Ph.D.
Chair, Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA

[RDA-L] [Pollupostage\SPAM] Re: [RDA-L] Extent terms (was Carrier type "Flipchart")

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Greta,

Thanks for the explanation. I understand the problem much better now.

By the way, as you've mentioned atlases: Here's another interesting 
difference between Anglo-American and German cataloging. When cataloging 
an atlas, we only give the number of pages and indicate that there are 
many maps. So "1 atlas (xy pages)" looks rather odd to me.


Heidrun



Greta de Groat wrote:

On 2/4/2013 5:51 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:

Greta de Groat wrote:


In addition, these (plus CD-ROMs and Blu-rays) had the problem of 
being applicable to multiple content types--they could be video or 
data or electronic text or a video game.  So 1 Blu-ray might be a 
video but it might be a game, and one CD-ROM might be just about 
anything.


I'm not sure I see the problem here. I'd have thought that in the 
"extent" element it simply doesn't matter what the content type of 
the work is. The "content type" element should take care of this 
aspect. So if you had "1 CD-ROM" as extent, you could have the 
content types "text", "dataset", "data  program", "cartographic 
dataset" and some more, depending on the type of work.


Heidrun

Well, you certainly can do that.  It's just that from my experience 
people seem to have the expectation that "1 DVD" or "1 Blu-Ray" is 
essentially equivalent (though more specific) than "1 videodisc" but 
that's clearly not the case.   You could say that DVD-ROM essentially 
means data other than DVD-video, though that's not explicitly stated 
anywhere that i know of.  But "1 DVD-R" might be video or data, and 
there isn't any word i've seen like "Blu-ray-ROM" or something like that.


In past, the SMD usually also implied the type of material--sound 
disc, videodisc, etc. so having it merely be the physical carrier 
without regard to the content would be a change--not that that doesn't 
seem logical to me but there was a strong pull in the RDA process to 
make data backward-compatable, and in RDA the carriers in 3.3.1.3 are 
identified by their content and none of the terms overlap so 
presumably there was a desire to keep that field somehow tied to 
content, except for computer and microform carriers.  It was always 
explained to us that "audio disc" (formerly AACR2 "sound disc") and 
"videodisc" had to be distinguished from computer carriers, because 
they required audio or video equipment respectively to play.  But 
that's now an artificial distinction since they are often the same 
physical kind of disc, they play in computers, and many audio and 
video players will play some computer discs.  Media type "audio" even 
specifies that "audio" can cover something which plays in an MP3 
player, yet it is not clear whether a CD-R or CD-ROM encoded with MP3 
audio files is an "audio disc" or a "computer disc." I've been waiting 
for a ruling on that from the music community. I've never seen an mp3 
player that plays a CD-ROM.


In addition, why do you use "volume" only when you have a volume of 
text (though most of the time you would, rather illogically, use just 
the pagination and not state "volume'), but if you have a volume of 
music, wouldn't you call it a score and if you have a volume of maps 
it would be an atlas?


Greta de Groat
Stanford University Libraries



--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

[RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

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 the 
standard rule (i.e. transcribe all names), it should be possible to use 
the optional omission for very long lists, if transcribung all names 
simply cannot be accomplished. I assume that a very similar idea is 
expressed in the LC-PCC-PS for 2.4.1.5 in the word "generally" 
("Generally do not omit names in a statement of responsibility").


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 
dealing with longish lists than reducing them to only one name.


Of course I'm aware of the fact that the "only first name" rule 
corresponds to AACR2. But still, I can see no reason why there shouldn't 
be more flexibility here.


Am I the only one who feels like this?

Heidrun

--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

[RDA-L] Save the date! NOTSL Spring Meeting April 5, 2013

[Kathleen Lamantia]

April 5th is just days after Day 1 for RDA. It's time to get practical with the 
RDA authorities! Come join NOTSL's program for managing your transition.

Paul Frank from the Library of Congress will talk about name authority records 
in RDA, the current state of NACO training, major differences between AACR2 and 
RDA name headings, and will provide guidance for non-NACO catalogers for 
constructing RDA name headings.

Chris Cronin from the University of Chicago Library will talk about managing 
the transition to RDA in your library.

The meeting will take place at Cleveland State University.

Watch for more detailed information as it becomes available.

Hope to see you there!


Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS
Technical Services Librarian
Stark County District Library
715 Market Avenue North
Canton, OH 44702
330-458-2723
klaman...@starklibrary.org
Inspiring Ideas ∙ Enriching Lives ∙ Creating 
Community

Re: [RDA-L] German cataloging rules "RAK"

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Sybille von Rüden wrote:


Perhaps punctuation in German bibliographic records is more diffentiated
than in ISBD.  A period in the author statement means that the person who is 
cited behind
the period has a different function than the person cited in front of the  
period, two names
separated by a semicolon mean that these two persons cited have the same 
function.


Fond though I am of RAK, I can't see any advantage here. I think the RAK 
punctuation isn't more  expressive, it's just different. Let's take an 
example with three names on the title page, like this:


X
Y
Edited by Z

The RAK solution is:
X ; Y. Ed. by Z

The AACR2 solution is:
X, Y ; edited by Z

In both cases, you can clearly see that Z has a different role than X 
and Y. But having a comma between X and Y seems much more natural to me 
than a semicolon (it is a list, after all).



A semicolon (with a space before and behind) separates two pieces of other 
title information,
whereas a colon in other title information ist just a punctuation mark which is 
taken from the
resource itself.


But the first other title information is introduced by a colon even in 
RAK, although an "ordinary colon" can also appear in the title proper. 
So I think that can't be the reason.


Well, it's nice to see that even after all these years, RAK has still 
some mysteries left to explore ;-)


Heidrun

--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi