Re: [RDA-L] Abridging statement of responsibility
Thank you. I think I am happy with the first two, although there are still hard policy decisions to be made. As far as possible, I intend to follow orthodoxy and widespread practice, hopefully both as much as possible. Some more comments below: -Original Message- From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca] Sent: 10 May 2013 19:47 To: Meehan, Thomas Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Abridging statement of responsibility Thomas Meehan asked: >>2. Statements of responsibility naming more than three persons (2.4.1= >.5). >Only the first is core, and must be main entry or added entry. But all may be >recorded. If not recording all, follow the one(s) recorded with "[and nn >others]". SLC will use "[et nn al,] due to our multilingual client base. I understood the default position was to record all, but if you accept the option, then I see what you mean. I am tempted to follow LC-PCC and BL practice and put the lot in except in onerous (to be defined) cases. >>3. Abridging statements of responsibility (2.4.1.4). >The major change is that we now may include data formerly omitted, but as with > much in RDA, options abound. When in doubt, I suggest including, apart from >affiliations. There is a field in the authority record for affiliations; they >don't have to be in each bibliographic record. A sample posted to Autocat >showed that it is complicated to punctuate affliliations, and that they may be >mistaked for responsible corporate bodies. >It does save time not to have to ponder what to omit. Again, I understand the default is to include everything, affiliations included, and the Option is to abridge, although in an unidentified manner. My main concern is that this is largely inferred from the examples rather than the rules themselves. If RDA wants me to put affiliations in and general practice does not follow the option and its nebulous consequences (LC training materials certainly seem to suggest they are no), I will be happy to follow. I am keen to avoid options unless necessary. Thanks, Tom
Re: [RDA-L] Abridging statement of responsibility
Andrea Leigh said:
>Yep. This makes recording statement of responsibility for DVDs even
>more straightforward-- NOT.
Some during the test period interpreted RDA to mean DVDs have no
statement of responsibility (apart from "a film by Tom Jones"). with
all noncast credits in 508. Motion pictures, like serials,
encyclopedias, etc., are works of mixed responsibility. I makes for a
cluttered display to select some for 245.
At the beginning of RDA creation, statement of responsibility was not
a core element. Motion picture (DVD etc.) cataloguers objected to its
being a core element. An easier solution is the mixed responsibility
one. Statement of responsibility is only core if applicable.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Abridging statement of responsibility
For a further wrinkle, I would also suggest to all that the next time you watch a movie, look at the credits and try to ascertain what the first statement is. And for extra credit, you can then figure out which of those are "identifying creators of the intellectual or artistic content" Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries Sent from my iPad On May 12, 2013, at 10:16 PM, James Agenbroad wrote: > Dear Judy, > Since retiring in 2003 I have not been closely following discussions of > RDA. It seems to me that in some cases "first statement of responsibility" > will be difficult or impossible to ascertain. I do not think it is > far-fetched it imagine: 1. A bilingual text with one right-to-left language > (e.g. Hebrew, Arabic, Persian or Yiddish (sometimes called HAPI though > several languages such as Urdu and Pushtu also use Arabic script)) and one > left-to-right language (e.g. English, French, Russian, Greek, etc. 2. There > is a title page at each end of the book. 3. Each contains a statement of > responsibility, the author's name, in each language on the same line. How > can one determine which is the first statement of responsibility? One might > try to determine if one language is a translation of the other but some > authors can write in several languages or it may not say. In such cases it > might be best to say something along the lines of "record the first statement > of responsibility when it can be easily determined but give several when > priority can not be easily determined". To me, recording the extra text would > seem preferable to making catalogers search for a way to decide which is > first. > Regards, Jim Agenbroad ( jjagenb...@aol.com ) > On May 10, 2013, at 11:21 AM, JSC Secretary wrote > >> Tom, >> >> One of the changes in the May 14 release of the RDA Toolkit will be a >> revision of the core statement at 2.4 to add information there that is now >> at 2.4.2: >> >> "Statement of responsibility relating to title proper is a core element (if >> more than one, only the first recorded is required). Other statements of >> responsibility are optional." >> >> The core statement at 2.4.2 for the element Statement of responsibility >> relating to title proper says: >> >> "If more than one statement of responsibility relating to title proper >> appears on the source of information, only the first recorded is required." >> >> The last paragraph of 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." >> >> >> Regards, Judy Kuhagen >> JSC Secretary >> >> >> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Meehan, Thomas wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> >> This is a fairly novice question but one where I would welcome some >> clarification, especially as far as the RDA text goes. Apologies if this has >> been raised before (I’m sure it must have been). I am looking at a couple of >> contentious aspects of the statement of responsibility relating to the title >> proper where I think there are three areas that require some decision on >> policy: >> >> 1. Which (or how many) statements of responsibility are to be regarded >> as core. >> >> 2. Statements of responsibility naming more than three persons >> (2.4.1.5). >> >> 3. Abridging statements of responsibility (2.4.1.4). >> >> >> >> It is the third one which confuses me most. The rule states “Transcribe a >> statement of responsibility in the form in which it appears on the source of >> information.” The examples that follow contain no titles (Mr, Dr, Earl) >> except those that would have been retained under AACR2 and no affiliations >> (…professor of History at the University of Biggleswade) at all. >> >> >> >> However, the Optional Omission beneath which says “Abridge a statement of >> responsibility only if it can be abridged without loss of essential >> information” has examples with all of this information in, e.g. “by Harry >> Smith // Source of information reads: by Dr. Harry Smith”. The option seems >> curiously vague about what can/should be omitted if the option is followed, >> and why. >> >> >> >> Is this basically a case of the examples of the main rule not catching up >> and so being illustrative of AACR2 rules rather than RDA? I notice, looking >> at the really helpful LC training materials and BL workflow, that the point >> is made more explicitly there so I think I am happy with what is intended, >> but I am uncomfortable having to interpret the meaning of a rule based on >> third party training and policy documentation, if that makes sense. >> >> >> >> Many thanks, >> >> >> >> Tom >> >> >> >> --- >> >> >> >> Thomas Meehan >> >> Head of Current Cataloguing >> >> Library Services >> >> University Colle
Re: [RDA-L] Abridging statement of responsibility
Jim, The element being discussed is the Statement of responsibility relating to title proper (RDA 2.4.2). So, before you get to this element, you have already selected the title proper. Then, you follow 2.4.2.4: "If a statement of responsibility relating to title proper appears on the source of information in more than one language or script, record the statement in the language or script of the title proper. If this criterion does not apply, record the statement that appears first." Also, I agree that if it takes too much time to decide which is first, I'd go beyond the core requirement (the first) and give all. My personal opinion is that giving all statements in different languages/scripts is important because the cataloger cannot know which will most serve which user. Judy On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:15 AM, James Agenbroad wrote: > Dear Judy, > Since retiring in 2003 I have not been closely following discussions > of RDA. It seems to me that in some cases "first statement of > responsibility" will be difficult or impossible to ascertain. I do not > think it is far-fetched it imagine: 1. A bilingual text with one > right-to-left language (e.g. Hebrew, Arabic, Persian or Yiddish (sometimes > called HAPI though several languages such as Urdu and Pushtu also use > Arabic script)) and one left-to-right language (e.g. English, French, > Russian, Greek, etc. 2. There is a title page at each end of the book. 3. > Each contains a statement of responsibility, the author's name, in each > language *on the same line.* How can one determine which is the first > statement of responsibility? One might try to determine if one language is > a translation of the other but some authors can write in several languages > or it may not say. In such cases it might be best to say something along > the lines of "record the first statement of responsibility when it can be > easily determined but give several when priority can not be easily > determined". To me, recording the extra text would seem preferable to > making catalogers search for a way to decide which is first. > Regards, Jim Agenbroad ( jjagenb...@aol.com ) > On May 10, 2013, at 11:21 AM, JSC Secretary wrote: > > Tom, > > One of the changes in the May 14 release of the RDA Toolkit will be a > revision of the core statement at 2.4 to add information there that is now > at 2.4.2: > > "Statement of responsibility relating to title proper is a core element > (if more than one, only the first recorded is required). Other statements > of responsibility are optional." > > The core statement at 2.4.2 for the element Statement of responsibility > relating to title proper says: > > "If more than one statement of responsibility relating to title proper > appears on the source of information, only the first recorded is required." > > The last paragraph of 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." > > > Regards, Judy Kuhagen > JSC Secretary > > > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Meehan, Thomas wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> >> This is a fairly novice question but one where I would welcome some >> clarification, especially as far as the RDA text goes. Apologies if this >> has been raised before (I’m sure it must have been). I am looking at a >> couple of contentious aspects of the statement of responsibility relating >> to the title proper where I think there are three areas that require some >> decision on policy: >> >> **1. **Which (or how many) statements of responsibility are to be >> regarded as core. >> >> **2. **Statements of responsibility naming more than three persons >> (2.4.1.5). >> >> **3. **Abridging statements of responsibility (2.4.1.4). >> >> ** ** >> >> It is the third one which confuses me most. The rule states “Transcribe a >> statement of responsibility in the form in which it appears on the source >> of information.” The examples that follow contain no titles (Mr, Dr, Earl) >> except those that would have been retained under AACR2 and no affiliations >> (…professor of History at the University of Biggleswade) at all. >> >> ** ** >> >> However, the Optional Omission beneath which says “Abridge a statement of >> responsibility only if it can be abridged without loss of essential >> information” has examples with all of this information in, e.g. “by Harry >> Smith // Source of information reads: by Dr. Harry Smith”. The option seems >> curiously vague about what can/should be omitted if the option is followed, >> and why. >> >> ** ** >> >> Is this basically a case of the examples of the main rule not catching up >> and so being illustrative of AACR2 rules rather than RDA? I notice, looking >> at the really helpful LC training materials and BL workflow, that the point >> is
Re: [RDA-L] Abridging statement of responsibility
Yep. This makes recording statement of responsibility for DVDs even more straightforward-- NOT. This is another area in RDA that will need to be looked at more thoroughly once the May 14 release is out. Andrea From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of JSC Secretary Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 11:22 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Abridging statement of responsibility Tom, One of the changes in the May 14 release of the RDA Toolkit will be a revision of the core statement at 2.4 to add information there that is now at 2.4.2: "Statement of responsibility relating to title proper is a core element (if more than one, only the first recorded is required). Other statements of responsibility are optional." The core statement at 2.4.2 for the element Statement of responsibility relating to title proper says: "If more than one statement of responsibility relating to title proper appears on the source of information, only the first recorded is required." The last paragraph of 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." Regards, Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Meehan, Thomas mailto:t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk>> wrote: Dear all, This is a fairly novice question but one where I would welcome some clarification, especially as far as the RDA text goes. Apologies if this has been raised before (I'm sure it must have been). I am looking at a couple of contentious aspects of the statement of responsibility relating to the title proper where I think there are three areas that require some decision on policy: 1. Which (or how many) statements of responsibility are to be regarded as core. 2. Statements of responsibility naming more than three persons (2.4.1.5). 3. Abridging statements of responsibility (2.4.1.4). It is the third one which confuses me most. The rule states "Transcribe a statement of responsibility in the form in which it appears on the source of information." The examples that follow contain no titles (Mr, Dr, Earl) except those that would have been retained under AACR2 and no affiliations (...professor of History at the University of Biggleswade) at all. However, the Optional Omission beneath which says "Abridge a statement of responsibility only if it can be abridged without loss of essential information" has examples with all of this information in, e.g. "by Harry Smith // Source of information reads: by Dr. Harry Smith". The option seems curiously vague about what can/should be omitted if the option is followed, and why. Is this basically a case of the examples of the main rule not catching up and so being illustrative of AACR2 rules rather than RDA? I notice, looking at the really helpful LC training materials and BL workflow, that the point is made more explicitly there so I think I am happy with what is intended, but I am uncomfortable having to interpret the meaning of a rule based on third party training and policy documentation, if that makes sense. Many thanks, Tom --- Thomas Meehan Head of Current Cataloguing Library Services University College London Gower Street London WC1E 6BT t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk<mailto:mee...@ucl.ac.uk>
Re: [RDA-L] Abridging statement of responsibility
Dear Judy, Since retiring in 2003 I have not been closely following discussions of RDA. It seems to me that in some cases "first statement of responsibility" will be difficult or impossible to ascertain. I do not think it is far-fetched it imagine: 1. A bilingual text with one right-to-left language (e.g. Hebrew, Arabic, Persian or Yiddish (sometimes called HAPI though several languages such as Urdu and Pushtu also use Arabic script)) and one left-to-right language (e.g. English, French, Russian, Greek, etc. 2. There is a title page at each end of the book. 3. Each contains a statement of responsibility, the author's name, in each language on the same line. How can one determine which is the first statement of responsibility? One might try to determine if one language is a translation of the other but some authors can write in several languages or it may not say. In such cases it might be best to say something along the lines of "record the first statement of responsibility when it can be easily determined but give several when priority can not be easily determined". To me, recording the extra text would seem preferable to making catalogers search for a way to decide which is first. Regards, Jim Agenbroad ( jjagenb...@aol.com ) On May 10, 2013, at 11:21 AM, JSC Secretary wrote: > Tom, > > One of the changes in the May 14 release of the RDA Toolkit will be a > revision of the core statement at 2.4 to add information there that is now at > 2.4.2: > > "Statement of responsibility relating to title proper is a core element (if > more than one, only the first recorded is required). Other statements of > responsibility are optional." > > The core statement at 2.4.2 for the element Statement of responsibility > relating to title proper says: > > "If more than one statement of responsibility relating to title proper > appears on the source of information, only the first recorded is required." > > The last paragraph of 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." > > > Regards, Judy Kuhagen > JSC Secretary > > > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Meehan, Thomas wrote: > Dear all, > > > This is a fairly novice question but one where I would welcome some > clarification, especially as far as the RDA text goes. Apologies if this has > been raised before (I’m sure it must have been). I am looking at a couple of > contentious aspects of the statement of responsibility relating to the title > proper where I think there are three areas that require some decision on > policy: > > 1. Which (or how many) statements of responsibility are to be regarded > as core. > > 2. Statements of responsibility naming more than three persons > (2.4.1.5). > > 3. Abridging statements of responsibility (2.4.1.4). > > > > It is the third one which confuses me most. The rule states “Transcribe a > statement of responsibility in the form in which it appears on the source of > information.” The examples that follow contain no titles (Mr, Dr, Earl) > except those that would have been retained under AACR2 and no affiliations > (…professor of History at the University of Biggleswade) at all. > > > > However, the Optional Omission beneath which says “Abridge a statement of > responsibility only if it can be abridged without loss of essential > information” has examples with all of this information in, e.g. “by Harry > Smith // Source of information reads: by Dr. Harry Smith”. The option seems > curiously vague about what can/should be omitted if the option is followed, > and why. > > > > Is this basically a case of the examples of the main rule not catching up and > so being illustrative of AACR2 rules rather than RDA? I notice, looking at > the really helpful LC training materials and BL workflow, that the point is > made more explicitly there so I think I am happy with what is intended, but I > am uncomfortable having to interpret the meaning of a rule based on third > party training and policy documentation, if that makes sense. > > > > Many thanks, > > > > Tom > > > > --- > > > > Thomas Meehan > > Head of Current Cataloguing > > Library Services > > University College London > > Gower Street > > London WC1E 6BT > > > > t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk > > > >
Re: [RDA-L] Abridging statement of responsibility
> -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: May-11-13 4:31 PM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Abridging statement of responsibility > > Thomas, > > > It's probably even less complicated than that. > > > > The name of the specific RDA element under discussion is "Statement of > responsibility relating to title proper" which means a statement listing > authors for separately titled pieces within the resource is not likely > related to > the title proper in question. > > > > Now you get me confused. Are we talking about the same thing? I'm thinking > of a title page which looks like this: > > [Title proper of the resource] > Edited by A and B > With contributions by C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K > > In my opinion there are two instances here of the element "statement of > responsibility relating to title proper", whereas you seem to think that only > the first one belongs to this element. > > The definition in RDA 2.4.2.1 says: "A statement of responsibility relating to > title proper is a statement associated with the title proper of a resource > that > relates to the identification and/or function of any persons, families, or > corporate bodies responsible for the creation of, or contributing to the > realization of, the intellectual or artistic content of the resource." > > The "with contributions by" statement ist certainly associated with the title > proper in the case discussed. What is perhaps debatable is the exact meaning > of "the intellectual or artistic content of the resource". > Although the people named aren't creators of the work as a whole, I'd still > say that they had something to do with "the intellectual or artistic content > of > the resource". But not "contributing to the realization"-- this is for expression level roles, such as the writer of a forward, who contributes to the realization of existing intellectual or creative content. It would be up to cataloguer's judgment to add them as a subsequent statement of responsibility relating to the title proper. Do they help in identifying the manifestation? If they appear as statements of responsibility in the contents note then the title page statement would be redundant. I see this as similar to a prominent series statement on the title page. It goes into own separate series statement field, and it may have its own statement of responsibility. > > It's interesting to compare RDA's definition with the one in ISBD 1.4: > "A statement of responsibility consists of one or more names, phrases, or > groups of characters relating to the identification and/or function of any > persons or corporate bodies responsible for or contributing to the creation or > realisation of the intellectual or artistic content of a work contained in the > resource described." > > Note the "of a work contained in the resource described". In RDA, there's a difference between "Statement of Responsibility" and "Statement of responsibility relating to the title proper". There are many kinds of statements of responsibility (such as related to edition, or to series), and they reappear in structured descriptions such as contents notes. > There can't be any > doubt that the "with contributions by" type falls under this definition. I > find it > hard to believe that RDA should have wanted to express a different meaning > here - perhaps it was just sloppiness (or a rare attempt to make it short)? > > If we really read RDA's definition to mean "Only a statement naming either > creator(s) or contributors (in the RDA sense) of the work as a whole can be a > statement of responsibility relating to title proper", this would lead to odd > results. Not only the "with contributions of" > type would not meet the criteria. The same would go for statements like > "with an introduction by". No, see note above. An introduction is related to the expression-- to a realization of a work. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Abridging statement of responsibility
Thomas, It's probably even less complicated than that. The name of the specific RDA element under discussion is "Statement of responsibility relating to title proper" which means a statement listing authors for separately titled pieces within the resource is not likely related to the title proper in question. Now you get me confused. Are we talking about the same thing? I'm thinking of a title page which looks like this: [Title proper of the resource] Edited by A and B With contributions by C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K In my opinion there are two instances here of the element "statement of responsibility relating to title proper", whereas you seem to think that only the first one belongs to this element. The definition in RDA 2.4.2.1 says: "A statement of responsibility relating to title proper is a statement associated with the title proper of a resource that relates to the identification and/or function of any persons, families, or corporate bodies responsible for the creation of, or contributing to the realization of, the intellectual or artistic content of the resource." The "with contributions by" statement ist certainly associated with the title proper in the case discussed. What is perhaps debatable is the exact meaning of "the intellectual or artistic content of the resource". Although the people named aren't creators of the work as a whole, I'd still say that they had something to do with "the intellectual or artistic content of the resource". It's interesting to compare RDA's definition with the one in ISBD 1.4: "A statement of responsibility consists of one or more names, phrases, or groups of characters relating to the identification and/or function of any persons or corporate bodies responsible for or contributing to the creation or realisation of the intellectual or artistic content of a work contained in the resource described." Note the "of a work contained in the resource described". There can't be any doubt that the "with contributions by" type falls under this definition. I find it hard to believe that RDA should have wanted to express a different meaning here - perhaps it was just sloppiness (or a rare attempt to make it short)? If we really read RDA's definition to mean "Only a statement naming either creator(s) or contributors (in the RDA sense) of the work as a whole can be a statement of responsibility relating to title proper", this would lead to odd results. Not only the "with contributions of" type would not meet the criteria. The same would go for statements like "with an introduction by". Addendum: I've just noticed that there is in fact an example "with a foreword by Scottie Fitzgerald Smith" in 2.4.1.6, i.e. in the general chapter on statements of responsibility. So this type seems to be all right as a statement of responsibility. Note that the general definition in 2.4.1.1 is identically phrased as the one in 2.4.2.1: "a statement relating to the identification and/or function of any persons, families, or corporate bodies responsible for the creation of, or contributing to the realization of, the intellectual or artistic content of a resource." 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] Abridging statement of responsibility
> -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: May-11-13 2:01 PM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Abridging statement of responsibility > > Heidrun said: > > > > >I've been wondering: Which statement would be core in the case of an > >edited collection, when you have one statement naming the editors and > >another one naming the people who have contributed? > > SLC preferes to record the editors in 245/$c, but the contributing authors in > 505 and 700$a$t. Recording contributors in 245 can lead to their being > confused with joint authors of the whole, and the first named being made > main entry. > It's probably even less complicated than that. The name of the specific RDA element under discussion is "Statement of responsibility relating to title proper" which means a statement listing authors for separately titled pieces within the resource is not likely related to the title proper in question. A "structured description" for the contents in 505 means that the elements there follow the same order as a regular description-- title proper, followed by statement of responsibility relating to the title proper. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Abridging statement of responsibility
Heidrun said:
>
>I've been wondering: Which statement would be core in the case of an
>edited collection, when you have one statement naming the editors and
>another one naming the people who have contributed?
SLC preferes to record the editors in 245/$c, but the contributing
authors in 505 and 700$a$t. Recording contributors in 245 can lead to
their being confused with joint authors of the whole, and the first
named being made main entry.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Abridging statement of responsibility
Mac Elrod wrote: > The major change is that we now may include data formerly omitted, but > as with much in RDA, options abound. When in doubt, I suggest > including, apart from affiliations. There is a field in the authority > record for affiliations; they don't have to be in each bibliographic > record. A sample posted to Autocat showed that it is complicated to > punctuate affliliations, and that they may be mistaked for responsible > corporate bodies. It gives me great pleasure to finally be able to include "M.D." or "S.J." in 245$c transcriptions. To me, that's part of the person's name and provides a bit of useful information about their qualifications and/or point of view. Omitting those details has bothered me ever since I began to learn cataloging 40 years ago (even though, back then, the issue really was how much you could squeeze onto a typed card). Misha Schutt Lead Cataloger Burbank (Calif.) Public Library 818-238-5570 msch...@burbankca.gov www.burbanklibrary.com
Re: [RDA-L] Abridging statement of responsibility
I think you are right. The last option in RDA is a melding of AACR2 and RDA. The original omission of "Dr.", for instance, had to do with the fact that the title did not add very much to essence of the area of responsibility (essence is a word may not be quite the correct word here). On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 8:10 AM, Meehan, Thomas wrote: > Dear all, > > > This is a fairly novice question but one where I would welcome some > clarification, especially as far as the RDA text goes. Apologies if this > has been raised before (I’m sure it must have been). I am looking at a > couple of contentious aspects of the statement of responsibility relating > to the title proper where I think there are three areas that require some > decision on policy: > > **1. **Which (or how many) statements of responsibility are to be > regarded as core. > > **2. **Statements of responsibility naming more than three persons > (2.4.1.5). > > **3. **Abridging statements of responsibility (2.4.1.4). > > ** ** > > It is the third one which confuses me most. The rule states “Transcribe a > statement of responsibility in the form in which it appears on the source > of information.” The examples that follow contain no titles (Mr, Dr, Earl) > except those that would have been retained under AACR2 and no affiliations > (…professor of History at the University of Biggleswade) at all. > > ** ** > > However, the Optional Omission beneath which says “Abridge a statement of > responsibility only if it can be abridged without loss of essential > information” has examples with all of this information in, e.g. “by Harry > Smith // Source of information reads: by Dr. Harry Smith”. The option seems > curiously vague about what can/should be omitted if the option is followed, > and why. > > ** ** > > Is this basically a case of the examples of the main rule not catching up > and so being illustrative of AACR2 rules rather than RDA? I notice, looking > at the really helpful LC training materials and BL workflow, that the point > is made more explicitly there so I think I am happy with what is intended, > but I am uncomfortable having to interpret the meaning of a rule based on > third party training and policy documentation, if that makes sense. > > ** ** > > Many thanks, > > ** ** > > Tom > > ** ** > > --- > > ** ** > > Thomas Meehan > > Head of Current Cataloguing > > Library Services > > University College London > > Gower Street > > London WC1E 6BT > > ** ** > > t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk > > ** ** > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Abridging statement of responsibility
JSC Secretary wrote: The last paragraph of 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." I've been wondering: Which statement would be core in the case of an edited collection, when you have one statement naming the editors and another one naming the people who have contributed? My gut feeling is that the editors are more important here, so in my opinion the statement naming them should be the "core" one. But on the other hand you could certainly say that it's the people who contributed who are the creators of the intellectual or artistic content (even if each of them is only the creator of his or her article). Then again, you might argue that you're in doubt and resort to taking the first one as core (in most cases, this will be the statement naming the editors). So you'd have come full circle ;-) Mind, I assume that most people would record both statements anyway (as I would), so this is perhaps only a philosophical question. Still, I'd like to get my rules clear on this point. 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] Abridging statement of responsibility
Thomas Meehan asked:
>1. Which (or how many) statements of responsibility are to be regarde=
>d as core.
The first only. But I suspect most will record all, or at least the first
person in each grouping, as well as trace them.
>2. Statements of responsibility naming more than three persons
(2.4.1= >.5).
Only the first is core, and must be main entry or added entry. But
all may be recorded. If not recording all, follow the one(s) recorded
with "[and nn others]". SLC will use "[et nn al,] due to our
multilingual client base.
>3. Abridging statements of responsibility (2.4.1.4).
The major change is that we now may include data formerly omitted, but
as with much in RDA, options abound. When in doubt, I suggest
including, apart from affiliations. There is a field in the authority
record for affiliations; they don't have to be in each bibliographic
record. A sample posted to Autocat showed that it is complicated to
punctuate affliliations, and that they may be mistaked for responsible
corporate bodies.
It does save time not to have to ponder what to omit.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Abridging statement of responsibility
Tom, One of the changes in the May 14 release of the RDA Toolkit will be a revision of the core statement at 2.4 to add information there that is now at 2.4.2: "Statement of responsibility relating to title proper is a core element (if more than one, only the first recorded is required). Other statements of responsibility are optional." The core statement at 2.4.2 for the element Statement of responsibility relating to title proper says: "If more than one statement of responsibility relating to title proper appears on the source of information, only the first recorded is required." The last paragraph of 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." Regards, Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Meehan, Thomas wrote: > Dear all, > > > This is a fairly novice question but one where I would welcome some > clarification, especially as far as the RDA text goes. Apologies if this > has been raised before (I’m sure it must have been). I am looking at a > couple of contentious aspects of the statement of responsibility relating > to the title proper where I think there are three areas that require some > decision on policy: > > **1. **Which (or how many) statements of responsibility are to be > regarded as core. > > **2. **Statements of responsibility naming more than three persons > (2.4.1.5). > > **3. **Abridging statements of responsibility (2.4.1.4). > > ** ** > > It is the third one which confuses me most. The rule states “Transcribe a > statement of responsibility in the form in which it appears on the source > of information.” The examples that follow contain no titles (Mr, Dr, Earl) > except those that would have been retained under AACR2 and no affiliations > (…professor of History at the University of Biggleswade) at all. > > ** ** > > However, the Optional Omission beneath which says “Abridge a statement of > responsibility only if it can be abridged without loss of essential > information” has examples with all of this information in, e.g. “by Harry > Smith // Source of information reads: by Dr. Harry Smith”. The option seems > curiously vague about what can/should be omitted if the option is followed, > and why. > > ** ** > > Is this basically a case of the examples of the main rule not catching up > and so being illustrative of AACR2 rules rather than RDA? I notice, looking > at the really helpful LC training materials and BL workflow, that the point > is made more explicitly there so I think I am happy with what is intended, > but I am uncomfortable having to interpret the meaning of a rule based on > third party training and policy documentation, if that makes sense. > > ** ** > > Many thanks, > > ** ** > > Tom > > ** ** > > --- > > ** ** > > Thomas Meehan > > Head of Current Cataloguing > > Library Services > > University College London > > Gower Street > > London WC1E 6BT > > ** ** > > t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk > > ** ** >
