I don't see what the issue is.  You transcribe the SOR as instructed.  If the 
statement needs clarification (a judgment call), you can add something, 
indicating with square brackets or by a note or by some other means that it 
came from another source.  As far as I know, that other source can be the mind 
of the cataloger.  You can also make a note "on other details relating to a 
statement of responsibility." (2.20.3)

The bracketed additions are a carry-over from AACR2 and a bit of a departure 
from RDA's general take-what-you-see approach, but it's a practical solution.

------------------------------------------
John Hostage
Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
Langdell Hall 194
Cambridge, MA 02138
host...@law.harvard.edu
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Janet Davis
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 11:31
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Sources of information for other title information
> 
> Thank you, Deborah - that is really helpful!  It certainly solves a
> rather similar problem we've had where some of the creators /
> contributors are only mentioned on the cover.
> 
> The thing I'm still slightly concerned about for my example below is
> that
> 2.4.1.7 doesn't seem to give you any option: it says "If the
> relationship between the title ... and any person ... named in a
> statement of responsibility is not clear, add a word or short phrase
> clarifying the relationship..."
> 
> To me, that sounds as though the clarification of role *has* to go into
> the SOR element?  If I'm right in that reading, while a 'note on SOR'
> may be useful it doesn't, I think (in this specific instance), get us
> round the square bracket problem?
> 
> To me, it seems as though RDA is forcing you to fail to meet one or
> other of its stipulations here.  I.e.
> 
> *Either* you ignore 2.4.1.7, transcribe the SOR precisely as it stands
> on the t.p., and just put the clarification in a 500 'Note on SOR' as
> you suggested;
> 
> *or* you ignore the order of preference of source groups b) and c) in
> 2.4.2.2 and say "I've taken this info from outside the resource (from
> the publisher's website, say)" and can then square-bracket the
> clarifying phrase in the SOR element itself.
> 
> At least at the moment, I can't see a good way to satisfy both
> instructions.
> 
> Thanks very much,
> 
> Janet.
> 
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2012, Deborah Fritz wrote:
> 
> > Janet Davis [Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:11 AM] said:
> >
> > Not an answer, sorry, but we've recently come across a very similar
> > issue with statements of responsibility.
> > ----------------------
> > I agree with Janet's reasoning:
> > - 2.4.2.2: "Take statements of responsibility relating to title
> proper
> > from the following sources (in order of preference): a) the same
> > source as the title proper (see 2.3.2.2)"
> >
> > - Since a Statement of Responsibility Relating to Title Proper is
> > provided for these particular persons on the same source as the Title
> > Proper, that is the statement that must be transcribed as given.
> >
> > - But then there is 2.4.1.7 which allows us to clarify the role of
> the
> > person, etc., using square brackets but that specifically restricts
> > that clarification to "information [that] was taken from a source
> > outside the resource itself as instructed under 2.2.4."
> >
> > I think that you have to go back to 2.4.2.2, and see that Statement
> of
> > Responsibility Relating to the Title Proper data can also come from:
> > b) another source within the resource itself (see 2.2.2)
> > c) one of the other sources of information specified under 2.2.4.
> >
> > So, if the information comes from "another source within the resource
> > itself" it is not given in square brackets, but if it comes from "one
> > of the other sources of information specified under 2.2.4" then 2.2.4
> > says " If information taken from a source outside the resource itself
> > is supplied in any of the elements listed below [list includes
> > Statement of Responsibility], indicate that fact either by means of a
> > note or by some other means (e.g., through coding or the use of
> square brackets)."
> >
> > So, if you use the square brackets you are implying that the
> > information came from outside the resource.
> >
> > Which leaves only the note instructions at 2.20.3.5 for recording
> > clarification or roles in this situation: "Make notes on other
> details
> > relating to a statement of responsibility if they are considered to
> be
> > important for identification or access."
> >
> > And in MARC terms that would mean that a note about clarification of
> > role would be given in a 500 general note as something like:
> >
> > 500    $a Cover clarifies responsibility relationships as: edited by
> Person
> > 1 and Person 2.
> >
> > This is far more clunky than using the square brackets, but it is in
> > line with restricting the use of square brackets to only be for
> > "information taken from a source outside the resource itself".
> >
> > How does that sound?
> >
> > Deborah
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
> > Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Janet Davis
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:11 AM
> > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Sources of information for other title
> > information
> >
> > Not an answer, sorry, but we've recently come across a very similar
> > issue with statements of responsibility.  We have books with SORs
> > varying between the different sources of information, e.g.:
> >
> > T.p. version: Person 1, Affiliation 1, Person 2, Affiliation 2 Cover
> > version: edited by Person 1 and Person 2 (and the people actually
> > *are* editors, not authors)
> >
> > Then 2.4.2.2 (prefer same source as title proper, i.e. here the
> t.p.),
> > 2.4.1.4 (transcribe as appears on source, here t.p.), and 2.4.1.7
> (add
> > text clarifying relationship in square brackets) together seem to
> > suggest transcribing as:
> >
> > [edited by] Person 1, Affiliation 1, Person 2, Affiliation 2
> >
> > - but the reasoning given for the square brackets in 2.4.1.7 seems
> > wrong, as the 'supplied' text actually does appear on the resource,
> > just not on the t.p. itself.
> >
> > One suggestion was to use the text as above but *without* square
> brackets.
> > But then this seems wrong too, as the full text string:
> >
> > edited by Person 1, Affiliation 1, Person 2, Affiliation 2
> >
> > appears nowhere on the resource, yet this is supposed to be a
> > transcribed element.
> >
> > I also feel that I must be missing something somewhere...
> >
> > Thanks, Janet.
> >
> > On Tue, 18 Dec 2012, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:
> >
> >> I'm mulling over RDA 2.3.4.2: "Take other title information from the
> >> same source as the title proper."
> > [DF:] [snip]
> >
> > --
> > Janet Davis
> > Betty & Gordon Moore Library, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge, CB3 0WD.
> > 01223 765676 * ji...@cam.ac.uk * http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/BGML/
> >
> 
> --
> Janet Davis
> Betty & Gordon Moore Library, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge, CB3 0WD.
> 01223 765676 * ji...@cam.ac.uk * http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/BGML/

Reply via email to