> 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..
Yes. You are right. The assumption seems to hardly happen :) If data can be transcribed as elements in categories, such as Author, Name: Date: Affiliation: , and then authority records could be automatically created. Is that right? Just my imagination :) Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Joan Wang <jw...@illinoisheartland.org>wrote: > > 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.. > > Yes. You are right. The assumption seems to hardly happen :) > > > Joan Wang > Illinois Heartland Library System > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Arakawa, Steven > <steven.arak...@yale.edu>wrote: > >> 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 >> > > > > -- > 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 > -- 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
