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
>
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
t is in the context of a video game.
Greta de Groat
Stanford University Libraries
- Original Message -
From: "Heidrun Wiesenmüller"
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 th
: 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
urce 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 be
-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
i
> RDA treats each "function" as a separate statement (see 2.4.1.6).
Unless the statement uses grammatical links between names performing different
functions.
RDA 2.4.1.5 gives the example of this situation of a single statement of
responsibility:
prepared for the Ethical Union by Mass-Observa
The following is from RDA Toolkit.
Core Elements
Statement of responsibility
Statement of responsibility relating to title proper (if more than one,
only the first recorded is required)
If my understanding is correct, the first statement of responsibility
(include all people) has to be transcri
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]
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,
PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons
etc.
Kathie said:
>... other than for classification purposes, I do not believe the Main
>entry really has that much significance ...
Wouldn't that be Cuttering pu
Kathie said:
>... other than for classification purposes, I do not believe the Main
>entry really has that much significance ...
Wouldn't that be Cuttering purposes, not classification?
What about 600$a$t and 700$a$t entries? Then there is the matter of
coordination with scholarly citation prac
> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Goldfarb, Kathie
> Sent: February-11-13 10:07 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of res
@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
>
> -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] Statemen
-
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.
Mac wrote:
Heidrun said:
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.
In which case there should be no
>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.
uary 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.
Heidrun said:
>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.
In which case there should be no 245/$c sta
AC.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 t
I think this may be the best solution so far too.
^^
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
~~
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 signif
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 un
Roslyn Smith wrote:
Another possibility which occurred to me was a statement of responsibility
along these lines:
Madeleine Albright [and 57 others including Carla Del Ponte and Joschka
Fischer].
Now this may be just the thing. I like this solution very much. In a
way, it's a sort of compro
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 indi
and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas
Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013 5:48 a.m.
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons
etc.
One could choose th
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 an
GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Heidrun
Wiesenmüller
*Sent:* February-07-13 1:39 PM
*To:* 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 a
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 t
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 DV
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 othe
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.
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
I didn't think you specifically were advocating cherry picking. I was
getting that vibe from other posts in this particular thread. And in my
experience the term "relevant" is basically a disguise for "cherry picking"
and does vary from institution to institution. A better/more complete
policy than
-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
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 doe
/ Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: February-07-13 12:21 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons
etc.
Thomas Brenndorfer wrote:
One could
Shana,
It wasn't my intention to advocate arbitrary "cherry picking". I believe
that the case I mentioned would (or should) appear only rarely. It
probably got too much emphasis in the discussion here simply because it
is a rather tricky one, but I still felt we should know how to handle
it.
d 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
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 s
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 deni
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 responsibil
M
> > 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 s
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
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
>
> -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 res
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
ions, 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]
: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
>
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 correla
w 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
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
>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 betwee
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 me
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
wrot
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 w
c-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
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 st
.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,
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
> respo
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
62 matches
Mail list logo
