Bob,
I did take the second part of the sentence into account as well. You may
disagree, but personally, I'd say that "Here begynneth a lytell treatyse
called" is a prime example for something which wasn't intended as part
of the title - at least not by the person(s) responsible for the
manifestation when it came into existence. Doesn't the phrase explicitly
express that the "real title" only comes after the word "called"?
On the other hand, we know that the concepts of title and title page,
historically speaking, are fairly young ones. And judging from the
present time and its requirements, it is certainly useful to give the
whole as the title of the manifestation. I also agree that, if we think
of the definition in 2.3.1.1 ("A title is a word, character, or group of
words and/or characters that names a resource or a work contained in
it."), it is perfectly legitimate to see the whole thing as the title -
all of it is needed to name the resource, including the "Here
begynneth". By the way: Perhaps this has something to do with the fact
that "Here begynneth ..." nowadays is not a common introduction, whereas
"Disney presents ..." is (so perhaps later generations will judge
"Disney presents" quite differently).
So, yes - I admit that we can arrive at a good solution, using only RDA
and hard thinking. But as somebody who teaches cataloging, I can't help
wondering: Why does RDA so often make it so very difficult? Having a
straightforward looking rule like 2.3.1.6, without giving any hint that
there are cases which look just like it, but should be treated quite
differently, seems a certain way of creating undesired results.
Therefore I would have liked to see a "but" example here to illustrate
these cases.
Perhaps it is up to cataloging teachers and textbooks to remedy this
(I'm eagerly waiting for "Maxwell's handbook for RDA", by the way). But
still, I often feel that RDA simply doesn't give enough guidance.
"Cataloger's judgment" is all very well, but it isn't something people
are born with. "Cataloger's judgment" must be trained and developed; it
has a lot to do with experience. I know that the rules cannot do *all*
(they must be supported by teaching, reading, discussing things with
colleagues, getting into contact with many live examples a.s.o.), but
they could certainly do *more* than they do now.
Maybe the German RAK rules are oldfashioned in that they tried to
regulate it all too much (with the - of course unattainable - ideal that
every cataloger should reach the same decision in any given case). But
RDA does seem to move to the other extreme. As so often in life, I'd
prefer a middle way ;-)
Heidrun
Robert Maxwell wrote:
2.3.1.6 says "Do not transcribe words that serve as an introduc tion **and are not
intended to be part of the title**" We shouldn't zero in on the first half of the
sentence without remembering the second half-and the second half puts the decision of
whether or not to record such words completely in the judgment of the cataloger. We are
to decide if the words are intended to be part of the title. If they are, we transcribe
them; if they aren't we don't. Frankly, in my opinion this goes without saying - when
recording a title from text on a source we first have to decide which words ARE the title
and we don't transcribe words that aren't part of what we decide constitutes the title.
(And as Heidrun points out there is no difference between AACR2 and RDA on this issue.)
Bob
Robert L. Maxwell
Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568
"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the
course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
-----Original Message-----
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 11:54 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] 2.3.1.6 Introductory words
The examples given in 2.3.1.6 for introductory words (not to be transcribed as part of a
title) all seem to be from the area of audiovisual and electronic resources (e.g.
"Disney presents"). I can see that the rule can be useful here.
But I'm not so sure about cases like these:
http://lccn.loc.gov/22008862
http://lccn.loc.gov/92033147
I feel that "Here begynneth a lytell treatyse called" and "Three books of" are
also introductory words, and therefore would have to be left out of the title proper of the
manifestation, if we take RDA seriously.
Mind, I'm not saying that this would be a good idea. And I'm very happy to see
that LC hasn't done it, although I find it's not a new rule (see
AACR2 1.1.B1).
But now I wonder: Is this due to the fact that LC doesn't use RDA (and before that,
AACR2) for early printed books in the first place? LC-PCC PS for 0.2 says they use
DCRM(B) instead, which unfortunately I don't know much about. Or am I on the wrong track
altogether, and these phrases are no "introductory words" at all?
Heidrun
--
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart,
Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
--
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media Universiy
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
