Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:
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.
Marks of omission don't seem to be totally outlawed in RDA, but they are
certainly much reduced. We are still allowed to use them when abridging
titles (2.3.1.4, optional omission), in title of series (2.12.2.3,
exception), and for celestial cartographic content (7.4.4.3).
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. :)
Personally, I think it would be o.k. not to indicate exactly where the
omission (or the omissions) occurs. This might be more confusing than
helpful.
So I'd vote for a solution like this:
- transcribe the first name
- transcribe other names, which you want to give, in the order in which
they appear in the statement of responsibility
- do not indicate if you've left out other names between the ones
transcribed
- instead summarize what was left out at the end
Heidrun
--
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
