If we were expected to transcribe the statement of responsibility, not just record it, the use of the mark of omission would make perfect sense. Yet, the two Optional Omission instructions under 2.4.1.4 seem to suggest that mark of omission in S-o-Rs has been denigrated under RDA.
Specifically: "Abridge a statement of responsibility only if it can be abridged without loss of essential information. Do not use a mark of omission (…) to indicate such an omission." and the example: Roger Colbourne [and six others] not: Roger Colbourne ... [and six others] The first, seems to me, is just codifying (as an option) the AACR2 practice of not transcribing or marking the omission of words associated with names, so perhaps it's not relevant. But the second does represent a departure from AACR2 practice (under AACR2 this would be Roger Colbourne ... [et al].) But taking a step back, and trying to think about it from the user's perspective: does it matter to your typical user that they know where the omission occurs, or just that there has been an omission (in which case, if they need to see the whole s-o-r for some reason they will need to obtain the piece)? Honestly I don't know. :) b Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 11:19 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc. Ben Abrahamse wrote: > * Though now, looking at RDA 2.4. again, I'm not 100% sure it's saying > to record. The heading for instruction 2.4.1.4 is "Recording > statements of responsibility" but the first sentence in the > instruction is, "Transcribe a statement of responsibility". In RDA, all of the data is "recorded". It's just that for some of the elements, the method of recording is specifically transcription. I wonder if it would be too weird to use the mark of omission, and have something like: Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, ... Carl Bildt [and 52 others] or: Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, ... Carl Bildt [and 55 others] I'm not really sure about this! The first one totally ignores the number of names represented by the mark of omission. The second one adds up all the names omitted before and after Carl Bildt. Either way, I'm not sure I like the look of it. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
