Joan, I think you're assuming that an authority record will be created for every new name cataloged under RDA. In practice, I doubt this will happen..
Does AACR2 state explicitly that affiliations are to be left out of the statement of responsibility? I don't see anything in 1.1F7 that seems to apply. We are told to omit, except under certain circumstances: "titles and abbreviations of titles of nobility, address, honour, and distinction, initials of societies, qualifications, date(s) of founding, mottoes, etc." [followed by the exceptions]. The only term I could pick out was "qualifications," but it seems a stretch to include affiliations under that category. None of the examples address affiliations so one could infer that the rule does not apply to such cases. In the actual examples of omissions, leaving out "Dr." in Dr. Harry Smith detracts from identification (ex. 1), the Library Association (ex. 2) seems like a pretty generic name so including the date of founding can't hurt, and "the late" from "by the late T.A. Rennard" (ex. 3) tells us that the manifestation was published posthumously. I think leaving in the "extras" enhances identification. It is not clear to me whether the list of omissions is to include religious titles, although this seems to be a common practice. The advantage of the representation principle for the statement of responsibility is simplicity. If you follow the AACR2 path it results in a whole mess of complicated decisions on what to leave in and what to leave out. I also think the RDA principle supports identification of the persons listed in the statement of responsibility, and, in some cases, suggests the author's point of view. It would help in making an authority record created retroactively (remembering the pre AACR2 practice of leaving out the statement of responsibility which was much deplored). The best practice for punctuation in order to demarcate person from affiliation has been a problem for me so very much like Kevin Randall's suggestion. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation Catalog & Metada Services Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 1:27 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4 > All of this information on persons' affiliations could be recorded in our > authority > records -- is it really necessary to repeat it all in our > bibliographic records as > well? I got an impression that one day data represented in authority records could be viewed or searched in end-users' clients. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Charles Croissant <crois...@slu.edu> wrote: I too would like to add my voice in support of Ben's position. Applying 2.4.1.4 as it stands, without applying the optional admission, is bound to lead in some cases to extremely lengthy and hard-to-read statements of responsibility, especially when four or more authors and/or editors are named on the title page, with each name followed by an affiliation. Is this truly what the JSC and LC/PCC intended with this wording and this policy statement? I understand the value of RDA's principle of representation, but, like Ben, I see a need for balance as well. All of this information on persons' affiliations could be recorded in our authority records -- is it really necessary to repeat it all in our bibliographic records as well? Charles Croissant Senior Catalog Librarian Pius XII Memorial Library Saint Louis University St. Louis, MO 63108 On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Benjamin A Abrahamse <babra...@mit.edu> wrote: Gene, I wish it were so. But 2.4.1.4 states, "Transcribe a statement of responsibility in the form in which it appears on the source of information." Immediately followed by the "optional omission", "Abridge a statement of responsibility only if it can be abridged without loss of essential information." I have looked in vain for something similar to AACR2 1.1F7., "Include titles and abbreviations of titles of nobility, address, honour, and distinction ... Otherwise, omit all such data from statements of responsibility", and not found it. I have also queried the RDA luminaries on this list and been told that including affiliations if they appear on the t.p. is part of RDA's adherence to "principle of representation". The fact that there are no examples of this in RDA just means JSC either didn't think of it or didn't want to get into it. Moreover the example I copied to the list was one I found in OCLC (there are plenty more of them, if you start looking). So, if this is not what RDA intends, the rules need to be made clearer, as it's how catalogers are interpreting it. Personally I would prefer that the optional omission be applied in these cases. There is value to the "principle of representation" of course, but I believe that value needs to be balanced against the fact that title pages have many more visual devices available to them (use of white space, font and font size, italic vs. roman, etc.) to communicate to users what information is essential and what is not. Since these cues are not available in a surrogate, the cataloger should be able (and encouraged) to use his or her editorial judgment. --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -- -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
