Just wondering--if the statement of responsibility does not need to be
bracketed (or justified) if not transcribed from the chief source--does this
change the concept of "usage" in the determination of preferred form of access?
What exactly is "usage" in the RDA environment?
Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation
Catalog & Metadata Services, SML, Yale University
P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240
(203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu
________________________________________
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 12:20 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Justification of added entries
Casey Mullin said:
>The example I cited in my original post was intended to
>show a straightforward example of redundant entry.
But if the form of name in the entry changes, having transcribed the
form on the item is no longer redundant.
SLC made quite a bit of money in early days of automating, dealing
with clients' older records which omitted statement of responsibility
and/or names of publisher, when they were the same an an earlier form
of main entry, which had changed or become an added entry. As
another poster pointed out, the form of entry is not a static element.
The form of name on the item remains the same, and is needed for
identification.
If we are unwilling to accept redundancy between entry and
transcription, transcription is more important for item identification.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
