Steven,
I suspect what you've seen is simply a result of AACR2 habit and
catalogers not remembering the change in RDA.
Adam
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
[email protected]
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011, Arakawa, Steven wrote:
When I attended the RDA 101 ALA preconference, one of the things that stuck
with me was the RDA rule 2.4.1.8. AACR2
1.1F12 makes a fine distinction between noun phrases that are indicative of the
nature of the work and noun phrases
that are indicative of the role of the person named in the statement of
responsibility. The former category is
considered to be part of the title; the latter category is considered to be
part of the statement of responsibility.
RDA 2.4.1.8 simply states that if a noun phrase occurs with a statement of
responsibility, it is part of the
statement of responsibility. In fact, RDA takes the same examples used by AACR2
to represent the 2 categories and
puts both of them in the statement of responsibility. Dr. Robert Ellett, the
presenter at RDA 101, had a much more
striking example of a noun phrase than the ones used by RDA and AACR2: ?a novel
by ?? which we have all seen at one
time or another. AACR2 cataloging rather consistently interprets ?a novel? as
indicative of the nature of the work,
with ?a novel? in 245 $b, usually immediately preceding the ISBD slash and ?by
Ruth Latta? in 245 $c, following the
ISBD slash. Explaining AACR2 1.1F12 has always been a headache for me when
training staff, so I welcomed the rule
simplification in RDA. However, if there is no grammatical connection to the
author, my understanding has been that
the noun (or the noun phrase) in RDA remains part of the title. So, ?? / a
novel by Ruth Latta? but ?... : a novel
/ Ruth Latta.? For training purposes, I wanted to have a couple of RDA
examples, so I went to our LC resource file
and did a combined keyword search on ?a novel? and ?rda? for all books
cataloged from 2008. All of the records
continued the practice of leaving ?a novel? in the other title and ?by so and
so? in the statement of
responsibility. I then searched on ?a novel? in the extra set file of the RDA
test and the results were no different
from the search limited to LC cataloging. I?ve checked the LCPS and 2.4.1.8 is
without comment, and the rule is not
covered in any of the LC Training presentations I?m aware of. The only
reference to 2.4.1.8 I?ve been able to
discover is in Adam Schiff?s AACR2/RDA comparison presentation, but the
AACR2/RDA examples are taken from AACR2
1.1.F12 and RDA 2.4.1.8. So I?m wondering if I understand the RDA rule, or if
the wisdom of the crowd has resulted
in the correct application of the rule. One interesting note--I found quite a
few poem collections in the same LC
resource file where ?poems by? is in the statement of responsibility; there are
certainly examples of ?poems / by?
but the number of grammatically connected ?poem? phrases in the statement of
responsibility seemed to be noticeably
different from the number of grammatically connected ?novel? phrases.
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 [email protected]
