I would interpret " first named person as part of the authorized access points for the work " as referring to the existence of a 1xx OR 7xx for that person, but not necessarily as main entry. In fact, other than for classification purposes, I do not believe the Main entry really has that much significance in the library's OPAC or our patron's searching needs.
kathie Kathleen Goldfarb Technical Services Librarian College of the Mainland Texas City, TX 77539 409 933 8202 Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email. -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 3:03 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc. >I think we're all agreed that transcribing all names in a statement of >responsibility is preferable to any kinds of shortening the statement. >I'm not so sure about your argument that the first name in such a list is of >special importance as a potential part of the access point of the >work. It was just a small point, but the reference was to one change in RDA from AACR2, which is to always use the first named person as part of the authorized access point for the work when there are two or more involved (and principle responsibility cannot other be determined) (RDA 6.27.1.3; also RDA 19.2 where the main or first Creator relationship to the work is a core element). In AACR2, the work had a title main entry if there were more than three creators named in the statement of responsibility. RDA doesn't have the Rule of Three, and one effect is that the first named in a long statement of responsibility will get greater attention than all the other names, and will likely end up as part of the authorized access point for the work (i.e. the name-title access point for the work). Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
