Including the sequence of the first few named and then truncating the statement with [and x others] seems like a reasonable and flexible option.
But I do view the use of [and x others] as itself violating the principle of representation, and perhaps that is why the LC-PCC PS has indicated that they will not generally use the optional omission. The first named does have a connection with the name potentially used in the authorized access point for the work, so there is a stronger reason for the first named versus the second named. The access point for that first named is also a core element (essentially, this is how RDA restates the main entry rule—as in AACR2, one name is more important than others, and receives a spot in the 100 field). As for the others that are named, I would be more comfortable transcribing the entire statement. In those exceptional cases with a huge number of names, it seems to me that potentially none of the names are that important (except the first named which might be used in the authorized access point), or that only select names would be useful for the users of the library, and so I would more comfortable putting those in a note, likely with some explanation as to why I pulled those specific names out of the statement of responsibility. I don’t see much discernible value in setting an arbitrary cut-off—if given a choice between transcribing a full statement of responsibility and making authority records for the first four or five names I would likely choose transcribing the whole statement of responsibility as more useful, if only for keyword searching. There might even be some workflow logic to that in that authorized access points can be added later if needed and the statement of responsibility wouldn’t have to be adjusted with some other arbitrary cut-off. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: February-07-13 3:11 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc. Thomas, If I understand your reasoning correctly, your main concern is with the case of transcribing selected names from further down the list (which, as I've tried to explain, I would see as an exception and not as the rule). I see what you mean, although I still think that it wouldn't be much of a problem for our users as long as something like "[and 38 others]" makes it clear that the statement is not complete. But you haven't mentioned the case from which the whole discussion originated: The question whether it should be allowed to transcribe e.g. "with contributions by A, B, C, D [and 16 others]" instead of "with contributions by A [and 19 others]", with A, B, C and D being the first names in the list. Do you see problems there as well? I'd argue that the first version meets the principle of representation better than the second. Heidrun On 07.02.2013 19:50, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: Perhaps, but one should always refer back to the RDA objectives and principles, and FRBR/FRAD user tasks. At one point in RDA development, the statement of responsibility was not going to be considered a core element. It was added back in as a core element. The core element set’s primary concern is the Identify user task, where resources have to be sufficiently differentiated from each other. The statement of responsibility also has utility in confirming that the resource sought is the one that matches the search criteria. RDA’s principle of representation (RDA 0.4.3.4) says that the data describing a resource should reflect the resource’s representation of itself. I think a highly elliptical statement, with names selected here and there, might violate the principle of representation, as people also match that statement of responsibility as recorded with what is on the resource. And if not all names are to be recorded even in a note, it seems best to accompany the recording of those select names with a brief explanation. It seems easier to just list names in a note, separated by commas, then to have an awkward-looking statement of responsibility filled with gaps and unexplained appearances of some names and not others. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: February-07-13 1:39 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc. Thomas Brenndorfer wrote: AACR2 also says “not named in a statement of responsibility” but its application extended to situations when all but the first named in a transcribed statement of responsibility were omitted. Thanks for this information; I didn't know that. Nonetheless, the idea doesn't really appeal to me. In the RAK rules, there is a very basic principle which says that notes are normally used only to give information which is not apparent from the rest of the bibliographic description. I think this is a sound idea. True, if we choose not to transcribe a name in a s-o-r, then this information isn't apparent from the rest of the bibliographic description, so we could give it in a note. But I'd still say it would be better to amend the s-o-r instead of using a note as some sort of "workaround". 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> -- --------------------- 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>
