I didn't think you specifically were advocating cherry picking. I was
getting that vibe from other posts in this particular thread. And in my
experience the term "relevant" is basically a disguise for "cherry picking"
and does vary from institution to institution. A better/more complete
policy than "pick the relevant names" is needed. Defining "relevant" is key
(e.g. is someone is designated as "primary" then yes, they're relevant even
if they're the last name on the list!).
I really like your suggested local policy:
(1) Whenever possible, use the standard rule, i.e. transcribe all names.
(2) If this isn't possible, use the optional omission.
(3) When using the optional omission, do not only give the first name, but
the first x names ("x" being a number agreed on in your institution or a
standard which you make up for yourself and use consistently).
(4) Give names of persons, who are not listed under the first x names, only
for important reasons: Either because the person has special responsibility
(e.g. a main actor in a movie, who is nonethless listed at the end because
his or her surname starts with a "Z") or if there are special local
requirements (e.g. if the person in question is a professor at your
University and you're supposed to document that). In this case, transcribe
the first x names plus the names of the additional person(s).
Permission to suggest it for local use at my institution?
Thanks,
-Shana
*****
Shana L. McDanold
Head, Metadata Services
Georgetown University Library
37th and O Streets, N.W.
Washington, DC 20057
(202) 687-3356
sm2...@georgetown.edu
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller <
wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote:
> Shana,
>
> It wasn't my intention to advocate arbitrary "cherry picking". I believe
> that the case I mentioned would (or should) appear only rarely. It probably
> got too much emphasis in the discussion here simply because it is a rather
> tricky one, but I still felt we should know how to handle it. I'd see it,
> as Ben called it, "as a practice of last resort, when you are faced with an
> extensive S-o-R and additional local requirements (for example: your
> library wants to record/trace people associated with your institution no
> matter where they appear in the s-o-r)."
>
> A good policy might, I believe, run like this:
>
> (1) Whenever possible, use the standard rule, i.e. transcribe all names.
> (2) If this isn't possible, use the optional omission.
> (3) When using the optional omission, do not only give the first name, but
> the first x names ("x" being a number agreed on in your institution or a
> standard which you make up for yourself and use consistently).
> (4) Give names of persons, who are not listed under the first x names,
> only for important reasons: Either because the person has special
> responsibility (e.g. a main actor in a movie, who is nonethless listed at
> the end because his or her surname starts with a "Z") or if there are
> special local requirements (e.g. if the person in question is a professor
> at your University and you're supposed to document that). In this case,
> transcribe the first x names plus the names of the additional person(s).
>
> Heidrun
>
>
>
>
>
> On 07.02.2013 18:36, Shana McDanold wrote:
>
> The idea of "cherry picking" who to include and who to exclude from the
> statement of responsibility really makes me uncomfortable. The idea of
> relevancy is very subjective depending on context, library, etc. Remember
> you can always pull out additional creators/access points LOCALLY as
> needed.
>
> If someone is indicated to be the "primary" author/creator, much like
> there are "primary researchers" and assistant researchers, and you have a
> really long list of authors/creators on the piece, then yes, make sure you
> include them.
>
> I also agree that putting in seemingly random marks of omission may be
> problematic, and support the solution offered by Heidrun Wiesenmuller:
> - transcribe the first name
> - transcribe other names, which you want to give, in the order in which
> they appear in the statement of responsibility - WITH THE CAVEAT of not
> cherry picking and using indicators on the piece itself to identify those
> with primary responsibilities
> - do not indicate if you've left out other names between the ones
> transcribed
> - instead summarize what was left out at the end
>
> If you're omitting names in the statement of responsibility, then either
> omit consistently for all the names or not, including whether or not you
> list additional information like titles/degrees/etc. Don't "cherry pick"
> who to include or what to include with each name on a name by name basis.
>
> I also really want to stress the "be consistent" message. Not across all
> records (different materials may warrant different decisions about options)
> but WITHIN a record be consistent. It truly is important for each record
> to be consistent internally. There will be wide variation from one record
> to the next, but each record should be consistent internally regarding
> application of decisions regarding RDA options. Don't mix practice/policy
> on a single record.
>
> Thanks,
> -Shana
>
> *****
> Shana L. McDanold
> Head, Metadata Services
> Georgetown University Library
> 37th and O Streets, N.W.
> Washington, DC 20057
> (202) 687-3356
> sm2...@georgetown.edu
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller <
> wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote:
>
>> Thomas Brenndorfer wrote:
>>
>> One could choose the optional omission and supply the element Note on
>> Statement of Responsibility (RDA 2.20.3) -- "... a note providing
>> information on a person, family or corporate body not named in the statement
>> of responsibility ..."
>>
>> So the statement of responsibility could have the first named only, and the
>> note could list additional names-- whichever names are important for
>> "identification or access" (RDA 2.20.3.5).
>>
>>
>> I wouldn't feel comfortable with this solution. According to the
>> defintion in 2.20.3.1 a note on statement of responsibility "is a note
>> providing information on a person, family, or corporate body not *named *in
>> a statement of responsibility". Mind, it doesn't say "a person etc. not
>> *transcribed
>> *in a statement of responsibility". In our case, the persons are
>> certainly named in the statement of responsibility.
>>
>> I think it would be a rather roundabout way to use a note for conveying
>> information which is explicitly stated in the statement of responsibility.
>> It would be much better to solve the problem by transcribing the relevant
>> part of the statement of responsibility, i.e. adapting the optional
>> omission in 2.4.1.5.
>>
>> Heidrun
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ---------------------
>> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
>> Stuttgart Media University
>> Faculty of Information and Communication
>> Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germanywww.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------
> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
> Stuttgart Media University
> Faculty of Information and Communication
> Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germanywww.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
>
>
