Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.
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 than one statement of responsibility relating to title proper appears on the source of information, only the first recorded is required. So in your example, only the first statement (the five authors) is required as core. And because that statement lists more than three names, under the option at 2.4.1.5 this could be abbreviated to only one name with an explanation of what was left out, although I should think it wasn't overburdensome to list five names. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept. 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Don Charuk Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 9:02 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc. We have been just debating this point recently and have reached in impasse on interpreting the omission options. For example if I possess a resource with five authors, two illustrators, and two editors RDA instructs me to transcribe all information according to rules 2.4.1.4-2.4.1.6. Therefore, I would include all the above mentioned persons in my statement of responsibility related to my title proper. However, we view this as increasing the workload for our cataloguers and situation that we wish to avoid. Hence we are looking at the what RDA core requires. My follow cataloguers and I disagree on what is considered core and the application of the omission options. Without going into a long list of scenarios could the list members provide a definitive interpretation on what RDA core requires in the above example. Don Charuk Cataloguer Toronto Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.
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 being recorded, give preference to those identifying creators of the intellectual or artistic content. In case of doubt, record the first statement. In the case mentioned, if the five authors are the creators of the work (i.e. if the work is a collaboration), then obviously the statement of responsibility naming those five is the core one, because it identyfies the creators of the intellectual content. But if you have a compilation, and the five persons are e.g. authors of essays in a collection (which brings us back to my example of a festschrift), it gets tricky. In this case, I'd argue that there is no statement identifying the creators of the work as a whole (as the compilation itself doesn't have creators), but only one naming the creators of the works contained (the individual essays). Personally, I would then think of the statement naming the editors as the core one here, and not the one listing the authors of the essays. But you might also argue that, as things obviously get doubtful, you can solve the problem by simply taking the first s-o-r as the core one. On the other hand, you might also argue that although the authors of the essays aren't the creators of the work as a whole, they are still creators of the intellectual or artistic content, and so according to 2.4.2.3 must be preferred. This sounds awfully complicated (maybe I'm just thinking too hard). And you must think that I'm obsessed with collections of essays... But they do turn up in cataloging, and I would really like to know how we should handle them. Heidrun Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote: RDA treats each function as a separate statement (see 2.4.1.6). My reading of the core note to 2.4.2 (Statement of responsibility relating to title proper) is that for core, only the first statement of responsibility is required: If more than one statement of responsibility relating to title proper appears on the source of information, only the first recorded is required. So if you had a book with five authors, two illustrators, and two editors (e.g. three statement of responsibility) you would only be required by core to record the first (the authors). You would further be allowed, according to the Optional Omission to 2.4.1.5 to record only the first author and summarize the remaining, e.g.: by John Smith [and four others]. --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Don Charuk Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 11:02 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc. We have been just debating this point recently and have reached in impasse on interpreting the omission options. For example if I possess a resource with five authors, two illustrators, and two editors RDA instructs me to transcribe all information according to rules 2.4.1.4-2.4.1.6. Therefore, I would include all the above mentioned persons in my statement of responsibility related to my title proper. However, we view this as increasing the workload for our cataloguers and situation that we wish to avoid. Hence we are looking at the what RDA core requires. My follow cataloguers and I disagree on what is considered core and the application of the omission options. Without going into a long list of scenarios could the list members provide a definitive interpretation on what RDA core requires in the above example. Don Charuk Cataloguer Toronto Public Library -- - 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.
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 or graphic of some sort? The statement of responsibility for videos is particularly problematic, since as Heidrun points out in 2.4.2.3, not all statements are recorded and it's not really clear from that rule which statements one should record. According to Appendix I, the only creators of moving image works are screenwriters. Producers, directors, production companies, and directors of photography are contributors. The first name on the credits is almost never the screenwriter. And it depends on whether first may precede the title or whether it has to follow it. The typical pattern for a commercial feature is: Distribution company Production company A, B, C, D in association with company E, F, G, John Doe, with support from company H, I, presents Actor 1, Actor 2, Actor 3, Actor 4, Actor 5 actor 6 in Title A bunch more actor names A bunch of technical crew Editor Director of photography and a bunch of other folks Producer John Doe, Jane Smith, James Jones Executive producer bunches of associate producers screenwriter director So, is my first statement the distribution company? Production company A,B,C,D? That statement plusc the in association statement? How about the support statement? Or do i just jump to what's after the title? In which case is the first statement the director of photography because that role is the first named after the title that's associated with the work? Or do i just jump to screenwriter because he's the first creator? And remember that there's a rule that a presents statement preceding the title is title information that is introductory in nature so you don't transcribe it as part of the title, but if you feel you want to record it you do so as a variant title (2.3.1.6). That implies to me that it is not considered a statement of responsibility. However, practically speaking, if there are too many names interposed between the presents and the title, it's impractical to record as a variant title and feels more like a statement of responsibility to me, but perhaps i'm just stretching the rules here. Most video catalogers i know try to include everything, which is extremely burdensome and, frankly i think a poor use of one's time. Personally, i try to do the first and put the rest in the 508. I'll usually go with the production company, though when the title is followed by a by or a film by statement i usually go with that. I suspect that every cataloger's reading of the rules will be different. Anybody else working on videos want to comment on your reading of the rules? Video games are problematic as well, as the disc label and container usually contain no formal statement of responsibility, just a plethora of logos of various companies whose functions are not given. You may need to go to a third party resource like allgame.com or mobygames.com to figure out who did what. Or you can look in the booklet and it might have a big bunch of programmer credits at the end, but nothing that looks like an overall statement naming a creator whatever that is in the context of a video game. Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries - Original Message - From: Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 9:02:29 AM Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc. 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 being recorded, give preference to those identifying creators of the intellectual or artistic content. In case of doubt, record the first statement. In the case mentioned, if the five authors are the creators of the work (i.e. if the work is a collaboration), then obviously the statement of responsibility naming those five is the core one, because it identyfies the creators of the intellectual content. But if you have a compilation, and the five persons are e.g. authors of essays in a collection (which brings us back to my example of a festschrift), it gets tricky. In this case, I'd argue that there is no statement identifying the creators of the work as a whole (as the compilation itself doesn't have creators), but only one naming the creators of the works contained (the individual essays). Personally, I would then think of the statement naming the editors as the core one here, and not the one listing the authors of the essays. But you might
Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.
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 Heidrun pointed out, only the illustrators and
editors are so related. Illustrator(s) and editor(s) could be in
245/$c, with the authors after their respective titles in 505.
Heidrun may not have yet joined Margaret Mann and Judith Hopkins as
cataloguing saints, but she is certainly ready for beatification :-{)}
It is my understanding that if these are in fact joint authors, and
there are more than three in the first statement, you could transcribe
only the first person in each category, but I may be corrected by
Mark.
Greta raises the question of motion picture video statements of
responsibility. She is corrrect that it is difficult. Far better, I
think, is to use 508 and 511 instead, as opposed to dividing
responsible folk between 245/$c and 508.
__ __ 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.
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 are two separate statements of responsibility and only the
first statement is a core element in RDA.
A clear explication, but this distinction, like the one concerning
noun phrases, is irrelevant to access. In both cases illustrated
above, the importance of the persons for access is no different, and
the distinction will not affect what SLC transcribes and traces.
__ __ 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.
I would interpret first named person as part of the authorized access points for the work as referring to the existence of a 1xx OR 7xx for that person, but not necessarily as main entry. In fact, other than for classification purposes, I do not believe the Main entry really has that much significance in the library's OPAC or our patron's searching needs. kathie Kathleen Goldfarb Technical Services Librarian College of the Mainland Texas City, TX 77539 409 933 8202 Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email. -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 3:03 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc. I think we're all agreed that transcribing all names in a statement of responsibility is preferable to any kinds of shortening the statement. I'm not so sure about your argument that the first name in such a list is of special importance as a potential part of the access point of the work. It was just a small point, but the reference was to one change in RDA from AACR2, which is to always use the first named person as part of the authorized access point for the work when there are two or more involved (and principle responsibility cannot other be determined) (RDA 6.27.1.3; also RDA 19.2 where the main or first Creator relationship to the work is a core element). In AACR2, the work had a title main entry if there were more than three creators named in the statement of responsibility. RDA doesn't have the Rule of Three, and one effect is that the first named in a long statement of responsibility will get greater attention than all the other names, and will likely end up as part of the authorized access point for the work (i.e. the name-title access point for the work). Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.
Does it help for collocating works under the same person? I think that this is the significance of distinguishing creators from contributors. Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Goldfarb, Kathie kgoldf...@com.edu wrote: I would interpret first named person as part of the authorized access points for the work as referring to the existence of a 1xx OR 7xx for that person, but not necessarily as main entry. In fact, other than for classification purposes, I do not believe the Main entry really has that much significance in the library's OPAC or our patron's searching needs. kathie Kathleen Goldfarb Technical Services Librarian College of the Mainland Texas City, TX 77539 409 933 8202 Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email. -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 3:03 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc. I think we're all agreed that transcribing all names in a statement of responsibility is preferable to any kinds of shortening the statement. I'm not so sure about your argument that the first name in such a list is of special importance as a potential part of the access point of the work. It was just a small point, but the reference was to one change in RDA from AACR2, which is to always use the first named person as part of the authorized access point for the work when there are two or more involved (and principle responsibility cannot other be determined) (RDA 6.27.1.3; also RDA 19.2 where the main or first Creator relationship to the work is a core element). In AACR2, the work had a title main entry if there were more than three creators named in the statement of responsibility. RDA doesn't have the Rule of Three, and one effect is that the first named in a long statement of responsibility will get greater attention than all the other names, and will likely end up as part of the authorized access point for the work (i.e. the name-title access point for the work). Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.
In searching, whether the name is in a 1xx field or in a 7xx field, the results list should be interfiled, as they were in our card based catalog. The display/indentation on that card would show whether the author was a main or added entry, but it would not affect the filing (if I remember correctly, I no longer have my filing rules manual). I think patrons are often unsure whether a person is an author, editor or contributor, they are just looking for works by that author. When they get to the actual record, they will be able to see the person’s role in the relationship designator. Now, as mentioned, that does have importance to the shelving of titles to keep works by the same author, in the same classification together, so we may want to make that distinction for shelving purposes. kathie Kathleen Goldfarb Technical Services Librarian College of the Mainland Texas City, TX 77539 409 933 8202 P Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 9:18 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc. Does it help for collocating works under the same person? I think that this is the significance of distinguishing creators from contributors. Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Goldfarb, Kathie kgoldf...@com.edu wrote: I would interpret first named person as part of the authorized access points for the work as referring to the existence of a 1xx OR 7xx for that person, but not necessarily as main entry. In fact, other than for classification purposes, I do not believe the Main entry really has that much significance in the library's OPAC or our patron's searching needs. kathie Kathleen Goldfarb Technical Services Librarian College of the Mainland Texas City, TX 77539 409 933 8202 tel:409%20933%208202 P Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email. -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 3:03 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc. I think we're all agreed that transcribing all names in a statement of responsibility is preferable to any kinds of shortening the statement. I'm not so sure about your argument that the first name in such a list is of special importance as a potential part of the access point of the work. It was just a small point, but the reference was to one change in RDA from AACR2, which is to always use the first named person as part of the authorized access point for the work when there are two or more involved (and principle responsibility cannot other be determined) (RDA 6.27.1.3; also RDA 19.2 where the main or first Creator relationship to the work is a core element). In AACR2, the work had a title main entry if there were more than three creators named in the statement of responsibility. RDA doesn't have the Rule of Three, and one effect is that the first named in a long statement of responsibility will get greater attention than all the other names, and will likely end up as part of the authorized access point for the work (i.e. the name-title access point for the work). Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.
Roslyn Smith suggested:
Madeleine Albright [and 57 others including Carla Del Ponte and
Joschka Fischer].
Great idea! But note that this would apply only to joint authors of a
work. Authors of parts in a collection go after their titles in a
contents note. The collection itself is entered under title; if no
collective title, one may be assigned by the cataloguer, which I think
is better than entry under first part title.
__ __ 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.
Heidrun, I agree - it's not clear. I'm not sure there's anything better than to transcribe the first name and then make a note about any other significant creators that you want to provide access points for. Something along the lines of: 245 / by John Smith [and 15 others] 500 Other significant creators: Robert Jones, Mary Roberts, Bill Hanson. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Fri, 8 Feb 2013, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: Adam, I think the problem with this solution is that it's not so easy to interpret: The marks of omission certainly show where names have been left out. But it's not so clear how many names there really were in the list on the source of information: What about the omitted names which are indicated by the ellipses - are these included in the 13 others? Or did the list consist of more than 16 names (i.e. the three transcribed plus the 13 explicitly stated plus an unknown number of names indicated by the ellipses)? Sorry for the hairsplitting... Heidrun Am 07.02.2013 20:56, schrieb Adam L. Schiff: If the point is to transcribe then I don't see how one could accurately transcribe the first, sixth, and fifteenth names without some indication that you've omitting names in between. One could do this perhaps using ellipses: / by John Smith ... Robert Jones ... Louise Jefferson [and 13 others]. But since RDA allows you to provide access points for creators and contributors without naming them in the statement of responsibility, I'm not sure that the instruction needs changing. But perhaps the instruction should say always record the first name in each statement and optionally add any other names considered important. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: 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 I'll certainly discuss this with Christine Frodl and the other members of the German RDA implementation group, and see whether we can submit a proposal. Personally, I'd be very willing to help make RDA conform to its spirit ;-) At first glance, perhaps what's needed is really only a slight change in wording. Benjamin has already suggested omit any but the first of each group of such persons, families, or bodies instead of omit all but. Another way might be: always record the first name of each group of such persons, families, or bodies. Other names may be omitted. An example according to the lines I suggested yesterday could be added, e.g.: [contributions by] Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, Carl Bildt [and 55 others] Source of information lists 58 names in alphabetical order, starting with Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann and Carl Bildt The tricky thing is what to do if for some reason someone wanted to transcribe not simply the first three, five or ten names, but perhaps especially the ninth and the 16th name in the list (in my example, Carla Del Ponte and Joschka Fischer). Should it then be possible to transcribe the statement in question like this (although the three names are not next to each other in the source of information): [contributions by] Madeleine Albright, Carla Del Ponte, Joschka Fischer [and 55 others] Or do we feel it would be necessary to indicate that there are seven other names between Albright and Del Ponte, and another six between Del Ponte and Fischer? This might get awkward... Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany 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
Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.
It occurs to me that one of the advantages of the suggested [and n authors, including Joe and Bob] route, is that it would be fairly painless for institutions who don't care about Joe and Bob to rephrase the 245 $c in their local copy. Certainly easier than removing multiple [and] statements and their marks of omission (if that were also required). It also perhaps wouldn't require a change to RDA at all, just be understood as a best practice to summarize what has been omitted under certain circumstances. The two places where I have run across large s-o-r's are: some textbooks (where authorship probably resides at the chapter level but is not indicated that way in the table of contents) and articles, particularly in the sciences. I've run across at least one article that had over 400 named authors (the s-o-r was quite literally longer than the article text), which is one situation in which we would want to be able to record authors associated with our institution instead of being forced to choose between recording everything, and recording only the first element. Obviously most libraries don't include analytics in their catalogs but there's no reason (rules-wise) why they couldn't. Ben 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: Friday, February 08, 2013 12:18 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc. Thomas, I think we're all agreed that transcribing all names in a statement of responsibility is preferable to any kinds of shortening the statement. I'm not so sure about your argument that the first name in such a list is of special importance as a potential part of the access point of the work. Although in RDA there can be more than three creators, my gut feeling is that we won't see too many cases with more than, say, five creators. Such lists can and should be completely transcribed. If you come upon a very long list of names, I believe it will (at least in the area of textual works) typically be for people who have written an essay or a chapter in a collection. The example I cited, for example, was a festschrift. So the persons in these lists are not creators of the work as a whole, but only creators of their own essay. Consequently, the first one mentioned would not be part of the access point for the work as a whole. This kind of list also tends to be arranged alphabetically, so there is really no indication that the first-mentioned person has contributed in a more important way than the others. It's just the person whose name happens to come first in an alphabetical order. Heidrun On 07.02.2013 21:35, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: Including the sequence of the first few named and then truncating the statement with [and x others] seems like a reasonable and flexible option. But I do view the use of [and x others] as itself violating the principle of representation, and perhaps that is why the LC-PCC PS has indicated that they will not generally use the optional omission. The first named does have a connection with the name potentially used in the authorized access point for the work, so there is a stronger reason for the first named versus the second named. The access point for that first named is also a core element (essentially, this is how RDA restates the main entry rule—as in AACR2, one name is more important than others, and receives a spot in the 100 field). As for the others that are named, I would be more comfortable transcribing the entire statement. In those exceptional cases with a huge number of names, it seems to me that potentially none of the names are that important (except the first named which might be used in the authorized access point), or that only select names would be useful for the users of the library, and so I would more comfortable putting those in a note, likely with some explanation as to why I pulled those specific names out of the statement of responsibility. I don’t see much discernible value in setting an arbitrary cut-off—if given a choice between transcribing a full statement of responsibility and making authority records for the first four or five names I would likely choose transcribing the whole statement of responsibility as more useful, if only for keyword searching. There might even be some workflow logic to that in that authorized access points can be added later if needed and the statement of responsibility wouldn’t have to be adjusted with some other arbitrary cut-off. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: February-07-13 3:11 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.
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 I'll certainly discuss this with Christine Frodl and the other members of the German RDA implementation group, and see whether we can submit a proposal. Personally, I'd be very willing to help make RDA conform to its spirit ;-) At first glance, perhaps what's needed is really only a slight change in wording. Benjamin has already suggested omit any but the first of each group of such persons, families, or bodies instead of omit all but. Another way might be: always record the first name of each group of such persons, families, or bodies. Other names may be omitted. An example according to the lines I suggested yesterday could be added, e.g.: [contributions by] Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, Carl Bildt [and 55 others] Source of information lists 58 names in alphabetical order, starting with Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann and Carl Bildt The tricky thing is what to do if for some reason someone wanted to transcribe not simply the first three, five or ten names, but perhaps especially the ninth and the 16th name in the list (in my example, Carla Del Ponte and Joschka Fischer). Should it then be possible to transcribe the statement in question like this (although the three names are not next to each other in the source of information): [contributions by] Madeleine Albright, Carla Del Ponte, Joschka Fischer [and 55 others] Or do we feel it would be necessary to indicate that there are seven other names between Albright and Del Ponte, and another six between Del Ponte and Fischer? This might get awkward... 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.
Referring to the statement that many libraries are planning to strip off $4
and/or $e ..., are you saying that the subfields would be entered in
cataloging and then suppressed? Just wanted to understand.
Thanks,
Rita Lifton
Library of The Jewish Theological Seminary
New York, NY
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 2:30 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons
etc.
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.
Mac wrote: 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 also think that whenever there is an access point for a person or corporate body, the corresponding statement of responsibility should also be recorded. Actually, we plan to recommend this in the German policy statements. 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.
I think it is a mistake to strip out those relator codes. Instead you can choose not to include $4 and $e in your indexing rules if you want to avoid a split file. And I'm all for using the relator codes to indicate the relationship and to skip the statement of responsibility. The CONSER Standard Record implemented this idea -- if the access point was reflected in an authority record -- a while back. Relator codes weren't required, but I think they should be in this case. From CONSER standard record documentation, 07/22/2010: 245 $c: It is not required to transcribe a statement of responsibility of any kind in field 245 $c. Footnote: For CONSER minimal level or non-CONSER records where no authority record will be created or updated for a heading named in a statement of responsibility, transcribe the statement of responsibility as usual in the bibliographic record so that usage can be documented. (Cf. LCRI 12.7B7.1) I'd rather spend the time adding access points, summaries, etc. I don't think the statement of responsibility supports the FRBR user tasks as much as other elements. Felicity Felicity Dykas Head, Catalog Department MU Libraries University of Missouri--Columbia (573) 882-4656 dyk...@missouri.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 9:10 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc. Mac wrote: 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 also think that whenever there is an access point for a person or corporate body, the corresponding statement of responsibility should also be recorded. Actually, we plan to recommend this in the German policy statements. 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.
do we feel it would be necessary to indicate that there are seven other names between Albright and Del Ponte, and another six between Del Ponte and Fischer? Since the RDA instruction is to record not transcribe* the s-o-r, I see no reason why we would need to add multiple summariz[ations of] what has been omitted. So I would think, Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, Carl Bildt [and 55 others] not, Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, [3 others], Carl Bildt [and 52 others] --Ben * Though now, looking at RDA 2.4. again, I'm not 100% sure it's saying to record. The heading for instruction 2.4.1.4 is Recording statements of responsibility but the first sentence in the instruction is, Transcribe a statement of responsibility. 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: Thursday, February 07, 2013 9:59 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc. An example according to the lines I suggested yesterday could be added, e.g.: [contributions by] Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, Carl Bildt [and 55 others] Source of information lists 58 names in alphabetical order, starting with Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann and Carl Bildt The tricky thing is what to do if for some reason someone wanted to transcribe not simply the first three, five or ten names, but perhaps especially the ninth and the 16th name in the list (in my example, Carla Del Ponte and Joschka Fischer). Should it then be possible to transcribe the statement in question like this (although the three names are not next to each other in the source of information): [contributions by] Madeleine Albright, Carla Del Ponte, Joschka Fischer [and 55 others] Or do we feel it would be necessary to indicate that there are seven other names between Albright and Del Ponte, and another six between Del Ponte and Fischer? This might get awkward... Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bihttp://www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.
Ben Abrahamse wrote: * Though now, looking at RDA 2.4. again, I'm not 100% sure it's saying to record. The heading for instruction 2.4.1.4 is Recording statements of responsibility but the first sentence in the instruction is, Transcribe a statement of responsibility. In RDA, all of the data is recorded. It's just that for some of the elements, the method of recording is specifically transcription. I wonder if it would be too weird to use the mark of omission, and have something like: Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, ... Carl Bildt [and 52 others] or: Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, ... Carl Bildt [and 55 others] I'm not really sure about this! The first one totally ignores the number of names represented by the mark of omission. The second one adds up all the names omitted before and after Carl Bildt. Either way, I'm not sure I like the look of it. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.
-Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: February-07-13 11:19 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc. Ben Abrahamse wrote: * Though now, looking at RDA 2.4. again, I'm not 100% sure it's saying to record. The heading for instruction 2.4.1.4 is Recording statements of responsibility but the first sentence in the instruction is, Transcribe a statement of responsibility. In RDA, all of the data is recorded. It's just that for some of the elements, the method of recording is specifically transcription. I wonder if it would be too weird to use the mark of omission, and have something like: Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, ... Carl Bildt [and 52 others] or: Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, ... Carl Bildt [and 55 others] I'm not really sure about this! The first one totally ignores the number of names represented by the mark of omission. The second one adds up all the names omitted before and after Carl Bildt. Either way, I'm not sure I like the look of it. Kevin M. Randall One could choose the optional omission and supply the element Note on Statement of Responsibility (RDA 2.20.3) -- ... a note providing information on a person, family or corporate body not named in the statement of responsibility ... So the statement of responsibility could have the first named only, and the note could list additional names-- whichever names are important for identification or access (RDA 2.20.3.5). No change to existing Example: Statement of responsibility relating to title proper: Madeleine Albright [and 57 others] Note on statement of responsibility: Additional creators: Franz-Lothar Altmann and Carl Bildt This also dovetails in with RDA 18.6, which instructs to add explanatory notes for relationships of creators, contributors, etc. to the resource. One other observation: the role of the relationship designator is connected to the relationship between specific entities like Creator Work. Many explanatory or justification statements or notes are embedded in the Manifestation level. While those statements and notes do serve some user tasks (such as identify), the idea now is that bibliographic data about relationships could exist in different contexts, which means greater weight would be given to relationship designators for carrying the burden of explaining the relationship. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.
If we were expected to transcribe the statement of responsibility, not just record it, the use of the mark of omission would make perfect sense. Yet, the two Optional Omission instructions under 2.4.1.4 seem to suggest that mark of omission in S-o-Rs has been denigrated under RDA. Specifically: Abridge a statement of responsibility only if it can be abridged without loss of essential information. Do not use a mark of omission (…) to indicate such an omission. and the example: Roger Colbourne [and six others] not: Roger Colbourne ... [and six others] The first, seems to me, is just codifying (as an option) the AACR2 practice of not transcribing or marking the omission of words associated with names, so perhaps it's not relevant. But the second does represent a departure from AACR2 practice (under AACR2 this would be Roger Colbourne ... [et al].) But taking a step back, and trying to think about it from the user's perspective: does it matter to your typical user that they know where the omission occurs, or just that there has been an omission (in which case, if they need to see the whole s-o-r for some reason they will need to obtain the piece)? Honestly I don't know. :) b Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 11:19 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc. Ben Abrahamse wrote: * Though now, looking at RDA 2.4. again, I'm not 100% sure it's saying to record. The heading for instruction 2.4.1.4 is Recording statements of responsibility but the first sentence in the instruction is, Transcribe a statement of responsibility. In RDA, all of the data is recorded. It's just that for some of the elements, the method of recording is specifically transcription. I wonder if it would be too weird to use the mark of omission, and have something like: Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, ... Carl Bildt [and 52 others] or: Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, ... Carl Bildt [and 55 others] I'm not really sure about this! The first one totally ignores the number of names represented by the mark of omission. The second one adds up all the names omitted before and after Carl Bildt. Either way, I'm not sure I like the look of it. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.
In what sense does RDA suggest that SoRs are recorded and not transcribed? RDA 2.4.1.4 (Recording Statements of Responsibility) says, Transcribe a statement of responsibility in the form in which it appears on the source of information. Apply the general guidelines on transcription given under 1.7. Kathy Glennan Head, Metadata Creation and Enhancement / Music Cataloger University of Maryland kglen...@umd.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 11:50 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc. If we were expected to transcribe the statement of responsibility, not just record it, the use of the mark of omission would make perfect sense. Yet, the two Optional Omission instructions under 2.4.1.4 seem to suggest that mark of omission in S-o-Rs has been denigrated under RDA. Specifically: Abridge a statement of responsibility only if it can be abridged without loss of essential information. Do not use a mark of omission (…) to indicate such an omission. and the example: Roger Colbourne [and six others] not: Roger Colbourne ... [and six others] The first, seems to me, is just codifying (as an option) the AACR2 practice of not transcribing or marking the omission of words associated with names, so perhaps it's not relevant. But the second does represent a departure from AACR2 practice (under AACR2 this would be Roger Colbourne ... [et al].) But taking a step back, and trying to think about it from the user's perspective: does it matter to your typical user that they know where the omission occurs, or just that there has been an omission (in which case, if they need to see the whole s-o-r for some reason they will need to obtain the piece)? Honestly I don't know. :) b Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 11:19 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc. Ben Abrahamse wrote: * Though now, looking at RDA 2.4. again, I'm not 100% sure it's saying to record. The heading for instruction 2.4.1.4 is Recording statements of responsibility but the first sentence in the instruction is, Transcribe a statement of responsibility. In RDA, all of the data is recorded. It's just that for some of the elements, the method of recording is specifically transcription. I wonder if it would be too weird to use the mark of omission, and have something like: Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, ... Carl Bildt [and 52 others] or: Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, ... Carl Bildt [and 55 others] I'm not really sure about this! The first one totally ignores the number of names represented by the mark of omission. The second one adds up all the names omitted before and after Carl Bildt. Either way, I'm not sure I like the look of it. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.
I would take Thomas's solution. It makes the 245 field consistent and neat. Also, we can supply access points for other important persons. So users are able to search them. My personal opinion. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Brenndorfer, Thomas tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca wrote: -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: February-07-13 11:19 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc. Ben Abrahamse wrote: * Though now, looking at RDA 2.4. again, I'm not 100% sure it's saying to record. The heading for instruction 2.4.1.4 is Recording statements of responsibility but the first sentence in the instruction is, Transcribe a statement of responsibility. In RDA, all of the data is recorded. It's just that for some of the elements, the method of recording is specifically transcription. I wonder if it would be too weird to use the mark of omission, and have something like: Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, ... Carl Bildt [and 52 others] or: Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, ... Carl Bildt [and 55 others] I'm not really sure about this! The first one totally ignores the number of names represented by the mark of omission. The second one adds up all the names omitted before and after Carl Bildt. Either way, I'm not sure I like the look of it. Kevin M. Randall One could choose the optional omission and supply the element Note on Statement of Responsibility (RDA 2.20.3) -- ... a note providing information on a person, family or corporate body not named in the statement of responsibility ... So the statement of responsibility could have the first named only, and the note could list additional names-- whichever names are important for identification or access (RDA 2.20.3.5). No change to existing Example: Statement of responsibility relating to title proper: Madeleine Albright [and 57 others] Note on statement of responsibility: Additional creators: Franz-Lothar Altmann and Carl Bildt This also dovetails in with RDA 18.6, which instructs to add explanatory notes for relationships of creators, contributors, etc. to the resource. One other observation: the role of the relationship designator is connected to the relationship between specific entities like Creator Work. Many explanatory or justification statements or notes are embedded in the Manifestation level. While those statements and notes do serve some user tasks (such as identify), the idea now is that bibliographic data about relationships could exist in different contexts, which means greater weight would be given to relationship designators for carrying the burden of explaining the relationship. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.
Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote: If we were expected to transcribe the statement of responsibility, not just record it, the use of the mark of omission would make perfect sense. Yet, the two Optional Omission instructions under 2.4.1.4 seem to suggest that mark of omission in S-o-Rs has been denigrated under RDA. Marks of omission don't seem to be totally outlawed in RDA, but they are certainly much reduced. We are still allowed to use them when abridging titles (2.3.1.4, optional omission), in title of series (2.12.2.3, exception), and for celestial cartographic content (7.4.4.3). But taking a step back, and trying to think about it from the user's perspective: does it matter to your typical user that they know where the omission occurs, or just that there has been an omission (in which case, if they need to see the whole s-o-r for some reason they will need to obtain the piece)? Honestly I don't know. :) Personally, I think it would be o.k. not to indicate exactly where the omission (or the omissions) occurs. This might be more confusing than helpful. So I'd vote for a solution like this: - transcribe the first name - transcribe other names, which you want to give, in the order in which they appear in the statement of responsibility - do not indicate if you've left out other names between the ones transcribed - instead summarize what was left out at the end 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.
The idea of cherry picking who to include and who to exclude from the statement of responsibility really makes me uncomfortable. The idea of relevancy is very subjective depending on context, library, etc. Remember you can always pull out additional creators/access points LOCALLY as needed. If someone is indicated to be the primary author/creator, much like there are primary researchers and assistant researchers, and you have a really long list of authors/creators on the piece, then yes, make sure you include them. I also agree that putting in seemingly random marks of omission may be problematic, and support the solution offered by Heidrun Wiesenmuller: - transcribe the first name - transcribe other names, which you want to give, in the order in which they appear in the statement of responsibility - WITH THE CAVEAT of not cherry picking and using indicators on the piece itself to identify those with primary responsibilities - do not indicate if you've left out other names between the ones transcribed - instead summarize what was left out at the end If you're omitting names in the statement of responsibility, then either omit consistently for all the names or not, including whether or not you list additional information like titles/degrees/etc. Don't cherry pick who to include or what to include with each name on a name by name basis. I also really want to stress the be consistent message. Not across all records (different materials may warrant different decisions about options) but WITHIN a record be consistent. It truly is important for each record to be consistent internally. There will be wide variation from one record to the next, but each record should be consistent internally regarding application of decisions regarding RDA options. Don't mix practice/policy on a single record. Thanks, -Shana * Shana L. McDanold Head, Metadata Services Georgetown University Library 37th and O Streets, N.W. Washington, DC 20057 (202) 687-3356 sm2...@georgetown.edu On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: Thomas Brenndorfer wrote: One could choose the optional omission and supply the element Note on Statement of Responsibility (RDA 2.20.3) -- ... a note providing information on a person, family or corporate body not named in the statement of responsibility ... So the statement of responsibility could have the first named only, and the note could list additional names-- whichever names are important for identification or access (RDA 2.20.3.5). I wouldn't feel comfortable with this solution. According to the defintion in 2.20.3.1 a note on statement of responsibility is a note providing information on a person, family, or corporate body not *named *in a statement of responsibility. Mind, it doesn't say a person etc. not *transcribed *in a statement of responsibility. In our case, the persons are certainly named in the statement of responsibility. I think it would be a rather roundabout way to use a note for conveying information which is explicitly stated in the statement of responsibility. It would be much better to solve the problem by transcribing the relevant part of the statement of responsibility, i.e. adapting the optional omission in 2.4.1.5. Heidrun -- - 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.
In what sense does RDA suggest that SoRs are recorded and not transcribed? RDA 2.4.1.4 (Recording Statements of Responsibility) says, Transcribe a statement of responsibility in the form in which it appears on the source of information. Apply the general guidelines on transcription given under 1.7. --Kathy Glennan Fair enough, they are transcribed. I'm still just wrapping my head around the fact that, after being told numerous times that there is a difference between recording and transcribing under RDA, the latter is actually a subspecies of the former. (The same way, in serials cataloging, we sometimes talk about serials and journals as two different things when journal is just a specific type of serial.) Still, the transcription guidelines under 1.7 do not discuss how to omit information. That appears, as Heidrun points out, only to apply to particular elements (mainly in the title). The assumption seems to have been that catalogers will never want or need to omit information anywhere other than in those specific instances. So I'd vote for a solution like this: - transcribe the first name - transcribe other names, which you want to give, in the order in which they appear in the statement of responsibility - do not indicate if you've left out other names between the ones transcribed - instead summarize what was left out at the end -- Heidrun Wiesenmüller I think I agree with this. It's practical. People with more descriptive needs (rare book, for example) may not. This strikes me as a practice of last resort, when you are faced with an extensive S-o-R and additional local requirements (for example: your library wants to record/trace people associated with your institution no matter where they appear in the s-o-r). --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:33 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc. Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote: If we were expected to transcribe the statement of responsibility, not just record it, the use of the mark of omission would make perfect sense. Yet, the two Optional Omission instructions under 2.4.1.4 seem to suggest that mark of omission in S-o-Rs has been denigrated under RDA. Marks of omission don't seem to be totally outlawed in RDA, but they are certainly much reduced. We are still allowed to use them when abridging titles (2.3.1.4, optional omission), in title of series (2.12.2.3, exception), and for celestial cartographic content (7.4.4.3). But taking a step back, and trying to think about it from the user's perspective: does it matter to your typical user that they know where the omission occurs, or just that there has been an omission (in which case, if they need to see the whole s-o-r for some reason they will need to obtain the piece)? Honestly I don't know. :) Personally, I think it would be o.k. not to indicate exactly where the omission (or the omissions) occurs. This might be more confusing than helpful. So I'd vote for a solution like this: - transcribe the first name - transcribe other names, which you want to give, in the order in which they appear in the statement of responsibility - do not indicate if you've left out other names between the ones transcribed - instead summarize what was left out at the end 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.
I think that LCC-PCC PS is an option for omitting more than three names. There should be an alternative for omitting how many names. Apparently cataloging agencies can have a choice. Once a local decision has been made, it should be consistently applied across records. I am learning from different perspectives. Appreciate it. Thanks. Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: Thomas Brenndorfer wrote: AACR2 also says “not named in a statement of responsibility” but its application extended to situations when all but the first named in a transcribed statement of responsibility were omitted. Thanks for this information; I didn't know that. Nonetheless, the idea doesn't really appeal to me. In the RAK rules, there is a very basic principle which says that notes are normally used only to give information which is not apparent from the rest of the bibliographic description. I think this is a sound idea. True, if we choose not to transcribe a name in a s-o-r, then this information isn't apparent from the rest of the bibliographic description, so we could give it in a note. But I'd still say it would be better to amend the s-o-r instead of using a note as some sort of workaround. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germanywww.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.
Shana McDanold wrote: I really like your suggested local policy: (...) Permission to suggest it for local use at my institution? Absolutely :-) 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.
If the point is to transcribe then I don't see how one could accurately transcribe the first, sixth, and fifteenth names without some indication that you've omitting names in between. One could do this perhaps using ellipses: / by John Smith ... Robert Jones ... Louise Jefferson [and 13 others]. But since RDA allows you to provide access points for creators and contributors without naming them in the statement of responsibility, I'm not sure that the instruction needs changing. But perhaps the instruction should say always record the first name in each statement and optionally add any other names considered important. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: 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 I'll certainly discuss this with Christine Frodl and the other members of the German RDA implementation group, and see whether we can submit a proposal. Personally, I'd be very willing to help make RDA conform to its spirit ;-) At first glance, perhaps what's needed is really only a slight change in wording. Benjamin has already suggested omit any but the first of each group of such persons, families, or bodies instead of omit all but. Another way might be: always record the first name of each group of such persons, families, or bodies. Other names may be omitted. An example according to the lines I suggested yesterday could be added, e.g.: [contributions by] Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, Carl Bildt [and 55 others] Source of information lists 58 names in alphabetical order, starting with Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann and Carl Bildt The tricky thing is what to do if for some reason someone wanted to transcribe not simply the first three, five or ten names, but perhaps especially the ninth and the 16th name in the list (in my example, Carla Del Ponte and Joschka Fischer). Should it then be possible to transcribe the statement in question like this (although the three names are not next to each other in the source of information): [contributions by] Madeleine Albright, Carla Del Ponte, Joschka Fischer [and 55 others] Or do we feel it would be necessary to indicate that there are seven other names between Albright and Del Ponte, and another six between Del Ponte and Fischer? This might get awkward... 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.
Felicity Dykes said:
From CONSER standard record documentation, 07/22/2010: 245 $c: It
is not required to transcribe a statement of responsibility of any
kind in field 245 $c.
For items of mixed responsibility we do not record a 245/$c, but added
entries are justified in notes, e.g., for DVDs 508 noncast credits,
and 511 cast credits. Notes justifying added entries for serials are
more rare, but do exist, e.g., a sponsoring body differing from the
publisher.
It is important that added entries be justified, not where in the
description they are justified. For serials, the relationship can
change over time, so best kept out of 245/$c.
Let us hope for an LCPS/PCC calling for justification as the Germans
are doing, if we can't get that change into RDA.
__ __ 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.
Thomas said:
One could choose the optional omission and supply the element Note on
Statement of Responsibility (RDA 2.20.3) -- ... a note providing
information on a person, family or corporate body not named in the
statement of responsibility ...
SLC has been doing that for years for such things as conference
proceedings and continuing education workshops. We don't need a new
set of rules to cover such a situation.
It seems to me most of the advantages touted for RDA could have been
more cheaply and simply done by AACR2/MARC21 revisions.
When/if we actually do have WEMI records, or W/I records, that might
change. If we are to have Bibframe W/I records, RDA needs to be
rearranged to reflect what we would then doing.
__ __ 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.
Including the sequence of the first few named and then truncating the statement with [and x others] seems like a reasonable and flexible option. But I do view the use of [and x others] as itself violating the principle of representation, and perhaps that is why the LC-PCC PS has indicated that they will not generally use the optional omission. The first named does have a connection with the name potentially used in the authorized access point for the work, so there is a stronger reason for the first named versus the second named. The access point for that first named is also a core element (essentially, this is how RDA restates the main entry rule—as in AACR2, one name is more important than others, and receives a spot in the 100 field). As for the others that are named, I would be more comfortable transcribing the entire statement. In those exceptional cases with a huge number of names, it seems to me that potentially none of the names are that important (except the first named which might be used in the authorized access point), or that only select names would be useful for the users of the library, and so I would more comfortable putting those in a note, likely with some explanation as to why I pulled those specific names out of the statement of responsibility. I don’t see much discernible value in setting an arbitrary cut-off—if given a choice between transcribing a full statement of responsibility and making authority records for the first four or five names I would likely choose transcribing the whole statement of responsibility as more useful, if only for keyword searching. There might even be some workflow logic to that in that authorized access points can be added later if needed and the statement of responsibility wouldn’t have to be adjusted with some other arbitrary cut-off. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: February-07-13 3:11 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc. Thomas, If I understand your reasoning correctly, your main concern is with the case of transcribing selected names from further down the list (which, as I've tried to explain, I would see as an exception and not as the rule). I see what you mean, although I still think that it wouldn't be much of a problem for our users as long as something like [and 38 others] makes it clear that the statement is not complete. But you haven't mentioned the case from which the whole discussion originated: The question whether it should be allowed to transcribe e.g. with contributions by A, B, C, D [and 16 others] instead of with contributions by A [and 19 others], with A, B, C and D being the first names in the list. Do you see problems there as well? I'd argue that the first version meets the principle of representation better than the second. Heidrun On 07.02.2013 19:50, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: Perhaps, but one should always refer back to the RDA objectives and principles, and FRBR/FRAD user tasks. At one point in RDA development, the statement of responsibility was not going to be considered a core element. It was added back in as a core element. The core element set’s primary concern is the Identify user task, where resources have to be sufficiently differentiated from each other. The statement of responsibility also has utility in confirming that the resource sought is the one that matches the search criteria. RDA’s principle of representation (RDA 0.4.3.4) says that the data describing a resource should reflect the resource’s representation of itself. I think a highly elliptical statement, with names selected here and there, might violate the principle of representation, as people also match that statement of responsibility as recorded with what is on the resource. And if not all names are to be recorded even in a note, it seems best to accompany the recording of those select names with a brief explanation. It seems easier to just list names in a note, separated by commas, then to have an awkward-looking statement of responsibility filled with gaps and unexplained appearances of some names and not others. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: February-07-13 1:39 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc. Thomas Brenndorfer wrote: AACR2 also says “not named in a statement of responsibility” but its application extended to situations when all but the first named in a transcribed statement of responsibility were omitted. Thanks for this information; I didn't know
Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.
Adam, I think the problem with this solution is that it's not so easy to interpret: The marks of omission certainly show where names have been left out. But it's not so clear how many names there really were in the list on the source of information: What about the omitted names which are indicated by the ellipses - are these included in the 13 others? Or did the list consist of more than 16 names (i.e. the three transcribed plus the 13 explicitly stated plus an unknown number of names indicated by the ellipses)? Sorry for the hairsplitting... Heidrun Am 07.02.2013 20:56, schrieb Adam L. Schiff: If the point is to transcribe then I don't see how one could accurately transcribe the first, sixth, and fifteenth names without some indication that you've omitting names in between. One could do this perhaps using ellipses: / by John Smith ... Robert Jones ... Louise Jefferson [and 13 others]. But since RDA allows you to provide access points for creators and contributors without naming them in the statement of responsibility, I'm not sure that the instruction needs changing. But perhaps the instruction should say always record the first name in each statement and optionally add any other names considered important. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: 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 I'll certainly discuss this with Christine Frodl and the other members of the German RDA implementation group, and see whether we can submit a proposal. Personally, I'd be very willing to help make RDA conform to its spirit ;-) At first glance, perhaps what's needed is really only a slight change in wording. Benjamin has already suggested omit any but the first of each group of such persons, families, or bodies instead of omit all but. Another way might be: always record the first name of each group of such persons, families, or bodies. Other names may be omitted. An example according to the lines I suggested yesterday could be added, e.g.: [contributions by] Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, Carl Bildt [and 55 others] Source of information lists 58 names in alphabetical order, starting with Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann and Carl Bildt The tricky thing is what to do if for some reason someone wanted to transcribe not simply the first three, five or ten names, but perhaps especially the ninth and the 16th name in the list (in my example, Carla Del Ponte and Joschka Fischer). Should it then be possible to transcribe the statement in question like this (although the three names are not next to each other in the source of information): [contributions by] Madeleine Albright, Carla Del Ponte, Joschka Fischer [and 55 others] Or do we feel it would be necessary to indicate that there are seven other names between Albright and Del Ponte, and another six between Del Ponte and Fischer? This might get awkward... Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany 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
[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.
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
Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.
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/bihttp://www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
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 http://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.
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/bihttp://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/bihttp://www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.
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.
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, 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.
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 babstill...@me.com 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.
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/
___} |__ \__
