Ben,
"in RDA there is only a possbility to add punctuation, but not to change it."
It seems to me that since the full-stop is used in ISBD to separate Title proper from Part/section
title, it can be considered "punctuation on the source that separates data to be recorded as
one element from data to be recorded as a different element" and omitted. Then we can add the
comma's, under the rubric "Add punctuation, as necessary, for clarity."
Hm, that's something more to think about. It seems that you and I
interpret "punctuation on the source that separates data to be recorded
as one element from data to be recorded as a different element or as a
second or subsequent instance of an element" quite differently.
I had puzzled it out like this: If there is punctuation (of any kind) on
the source of information between things that we record as two elements,
it is disregarded. An example for punctuation on the source between two
different elements would be e.g. a dash between something that is
recorded as title proper and something that is recorded as other title
information. An example for punctuation between two instances of the
same element would be e.g. a slash or a comma between two places of
publication. My understanding is that in these cases we simply ignore
the dash, slash, comma (or whatever it is) and record the elements
without it. If we use ISBD punctuation, of course we then have to add
the prescribed punctuation between these elements.
So, I wouldn't leave out the full stop just because it is used in ISBD
in a special way. Your reading, on the other hand, is (if I understand
it correctly): Leave out punctuation which could be mixed up with
prescribed ISBD punctuation, and then add some other punctuation for
clarity.
I've got to think on this some more ...
By the way, I don't like the instruction in 2.3.1.7 (and other similar
ones) one little bit, where it says: "Use a full stop to separate the
common title from the title of the part, section, or supplement."
Doesn't RDA claim that it is a content standard, and as such doesn't
prescribe a certain way of display (see RDA 0.1: "a clear line of
separation has been established between the guidelines and instructions
on recording data and those on the presentation of data")? But what else
is the full stop here if not a matter of display? In my opinion, the
rule should only express something like this: If the conditions
described in 2.3.1.7 apply, "record the title of the part, section, or
supplement together with the common title". How this is then presented
should be left to the cataloguing agency. If ISBD is followed, then the
rules given in Appendix D apply (see D.1.2.2). But if an agency chooses
not to use ISBD, and instead display the information differently (e.g.
by showing the title of the part below the common title), this should be
acceptable in RDA as well. But as the rule in 2.3.1.7 stands, it is not.
Oups, it seems I've wandered somewhat from the subject. Sorry about that.
Heidrun
--
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
