Stephen,
True, perhaps this particular problem is only a problem for people like
me, coming from a different cataloging background. I haven't had 30
years of experience with AACR2. Most of my cataloging experiences are
with a different code, the German RAK. And RAK has an explicit example
of the "Here begynneth" type ("Hier hebt sich an das Buch des Glücks der
Kinder Adams", § 501,2), saying that these things are to be seen as part
of the title. So maybe I'm a bit spoilt by being used to very detailed
and explict rules ;-)
But as RDA is supposed to be an international code, one should be able
to understand and apply it without prior knowledge of AACR2.
However, I admit that the "introductory words" are a very bad example
for what I was trying to illustrate, as RDA's presentation here is no
worse than the one in AACR2 (although it's certainly not any better).
Here are some other, perhaps clearer examples, where I believe RDA to be
unnecessarily difficult to understand and interpret (most of them were
already discussed on the list):
- Other title information: It is very tricky to deduce what to do with
"things that look like other title information" but are not on the same
source of information as the title proper (i.e. cannot be recorded as
other title information - understanding this is a difficulty in itself).
Why not include a sentence in 2.3.4.2 saying that these could be
recorded as variant titles?
- Statements of responsibility in more than one language: If you read
2.4.2.4 you get the impression that you are only allowed to record the
statement in the main language. Why not include a sentence here saying
that the statements in other languages can be recorded according to 2.4.3.3?
- 1.4 Language and script: "When recording an element listed above as a
supplied element, record the supplied element in the most appropriate
language and script." I've already put the question here (and nobody
answered...): What then is the most appropriate language and script?
Couldn't we get at least an example here of what sort of reasoning is
expected from us?
- 2.15.1.4 Recording identifiers for manifestations: A colleague asked
me the other day whether ISBNs should be recorded with or without
hyphens, as the examples in 2.15.1.4 were, as she said, "inconsistent"
(there are two examples with hyphens and one without). I worked it out
like this: The rule says: "If the identifier for the manifestation is
one for which there is a prescribed display format (e.g., ISBN, ISSN,
URN), record it in accordance with that format." As the ISBN format
allows to have either hyphens or spaces, all given examples are valid
ones. But couldn't there have been a note in the examples explaining this?
- 2.4.1.5 Statements of responsibility naming more than one person,
etc.: I've only realized today - and only because a colleague pointed it
out to me - that RDA does not require us to count the number of names
left out of a statement of responsbility if the optional omission is
applied. You tend to think you do, as the example says "Roger Colbourne
[and six others]". But if you read the text carefully, you'll find it
only says "summarize what has been omitted". It doesn't say "summarize
what has been omitted, giving the number of names which have been left
out". So there's nothing to stop you from e.g. putting "[and
approximately 30 others]" or some such. This could have easily been
avoided by having more than one example to illustrate the possibilities.
Reading other people's posts on RDA-L and AUTOCAT, I got the impression
I'm not the only one struggling with things like this.
Heidrun
Am 22.04.2013 20:30, schrieb McDonald, Stephen:
Heidrun Wiesenmüller said:
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.
But this is not a new rule. AACR2 had exactly the same rule. We have been
teaching
this rule and learning how to deal with it for over thirty years. If you teach
cataloging,
I hope you are aware of this. There are certainly legitimate complaints about
RDA,
particularly in clarity and examples. But you cannot legitimately use this
rule as an
example of how RDA is a step in the wrong direction, when it is the same as
AACR2.
Steve McDonald
steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu
--
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
