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/