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/ ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________