I was just brooding about why 2.4.2 and 2.4.2.3 seem to contradict each
other:
In 2.4.2 we read "If more than one statement of responsibility relating
to title proper appears on the source of information, only the first
recorded is required", and in 2.4.2.3, as already quoted: "If not all
statements of responsibility appearing on the source or sources of
information are being recorded, give preference to those identifying
creators of the intellectual or artistic content. In case of doubt,
record the first statement."
Now it occurs to me: 2.4.2 says "the first recorded" and not "the first
statement on the source of information". So maybe, what is meant by
2.4.2 is: "you only have to record one statement of responsibility", but
it doesn't specify which. This is then done in 2.4.2.3. Indeed, if you
think about it, there is a subtle difference between "the first recorded
is required" and "record the first statement".
Or am I over-interpreting?
Heidrun
Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:
I agree with Ben, but would like to point out that the rule about
which statement of responsibility is "core" can get more complicated
than just saying "it's always the first one".
RDA 2.4.2.3 says: "If not all statements of responsibility appearing
on the source or sources of information are being recorded, give
preference to those identifying creators of the intellectual or
artistic content. In case of doubt, record the first statement."
In the case mentioned, if the five authors are the creators of the
work (i.e. if the work is a collaboration), then obviously the
statement of responsibility naming those five is the "core" one,
because it identyfies the creators of the intellectual content.
But if you have a compilation, and the five persons are e.g. authors
of essays in a collection (which brings us back to my example of a
festschrift), it gets tricky. In this case, I'd argue that there is no
statement identifying the creators of the work as a whole (as the
compilation itself doesn't have creators), but only one naming the
creators of the works contained (the individual essays).
Personally, I would then think of the statement naming the editors as
the "core" one here, and not the one listing the authors of the
essays. But you might also argue that, as things obviously get
doubtful, you can solve the problem by simply taking the first s-o-r
as the "core" one.
On the other hand, you might also argue that although the authors of
the essays aren't the creators of the work as a whole, they are still
"creators of the intellectual or artistic content", and so according
to 2.4.2.3 must be preferred.
This sounds awfully complicated (maybe I'm just thinking too hard).
And you must think that I'm obsessed with collections of essays... But
they do turn up in cataloging, and I would really like to know how we
should handle them.
Heidrun
Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:
RDA treats each "function" as a separate statement (see 2.4.1.6).
My reading of the "core note" to 2.4.2 (Statement of responsibility
relating to title proper) is that for "core", only the first
statement of responsibility is required: " If more than one statement
of responsibility relating to title proper appears on the source of
information, only the first recorded is required."
So if you had a book with five authors, two illustrators, and two
editors (e.g. three statement of responsibility) you would only be
required by "core" to record the first (the authors). You would
further be allowed, according to the Optional Omission to 2.4.1.5 to
record only the first author and summarize the remaining, e.g.: by
John Smith [and four others].
--Ben
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 Don Charuk
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 11:02 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than
three persons etc.
We have been just debating this point recently and have reached in
impasse on interpreting the omission options. For example if I
possess a resource with five authors, two illustrators, and two
editors RDA instructs me to transcribe all information according to
rules 2.4.1.4-2.4.1.6. Therefore, I would include all the above
mentioned persons in my statement of responsibility related to my
title proper. However, we view this as increasing the workload for
our cataloguers and situation that we wish to avoid. Hence we are
looking at the what RDA core requires. My follow cataloguers and I
disagree on what is considered core and the application of the
omission options. Without going into a long list of scenarios could
the list members provide a definitive interpretation on what RDA core
requires in the above example.
Don Charuk
Cataloguer
Toronto Public Library
--
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
