I'm relieved to hear Dr Tillett say that this is allowed under RDA. Sometime
you run across some truly gargantuan s-o-r's and sadly need to pick and choose
whom to record.
That said, I agree with Heidrun that neither the rules, as they currently exist
in the Toolkit, nor the LC/PCC CPS, appear to allow the option to do that. At
least not clearly and explicitly.
Perhaps the Optional Omission to 2.4.1.5 text should be changed to:
"If a single statement of responsibility names more than three persons,
families, or corporate bodies performing the same function, or with the same
degree of responsibility, omit any but the first of each group of such persons,
families, or bodies."
Maybe that's something in the works at the JSC?
________________________________
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] on behalf of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
[wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 4:36 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons
etc.
Barbara,
I can??? Now this is a pleasant surprise.
Only I'm not sure where it says so in the rules. The optional omission in
2.4.1.5 explicitly states "omit all but the first of each group."
I've noted that the optional omission in 2.4.1.4 says "Always record the first
name appearing in a statement". This sounds as if it were possible to leave out
e.g. all names after the fifth. But on the other hand there is an explicit
reference to 2.4.1.5: "When omitting names from a statement of responsibility
naming more than three persons, etc., apply the instructions given under
2.4.1.5".
Heidrun
Am 06.02.2013 22:06, schrieb JSC Chair:
You can do exactly what you suggested with RDA. - Barbara Tillett
On Wednesday, February 6, 2013, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:
After all this talk about German cataloging, I suppose it's time to get back to
RDA ;-)
The other day we discussed the optional omission for statements of
responsibility naming more than three persons, etc. (RDA 2.4.1.5). The general
feeling was that although everybody ought to try and follow the standard rule
(i.e. transcribe all names), it should be possible to use the optional omission
for very long lists, if transcribung all names simply cannot be accomplished. I
assume that a very similar idea is expressed in the LC-PCC-PS for 2.4.1.5 in
the word "generally" ("Generally do not omit names in a statement of
responsibility").
But I'm not happy that the only alternatives are either "all names" (standard
rule) or "only the first name" (option). Why shouldn't it be equally possible
to transcribe, say, the first three, five or ten names and then put "[and x
others]"? This might be a more satisfactory way of dealing with longish lists
than reducing them to only one name.
Of course I'm aware of the fact that the "only first name" rule corresponds to
AACR2. But still, I can see no reason why there shouldn't be more flexibility
here.
Am I the only one who feels like this?
Heidrun
--
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi<http://www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi>
--
Dr. Barbara B. Tillett, Ph.D.
Chair, Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA
--
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi<http://www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi>
