Tom, One of the changes in the May 14 release of the RDA Toolkit will be a revision of the core statement at 2.4 to add information there that is now at 2.4.2:
"Statement of responsibility relating to title proper is a core element (if more than one, only the first recorded is required). Other statements of responsibility are optional." The core statement at 2.4.2 for the element Statement of responsibility relating to title proper says: "If more than one statement of responsibility relating to title proper appears on the source of information, only the first recorded is required." The last paragraph of 2.4.2.3 says: "If not all statements of responsibility appearing on the source or sources of information are being recorded, give preference to those identifying creators of the intellectual or artistic content. In case of doubt, record the first statement." Regards, Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Meehan, Thomas <t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk> wrote: > Dear all,**** > > > This is a fairly novice question but one where I would welcome some > clarification, especially as far as the RDA text goes. Apologies if this > has been raised before (I’m sure it must have been). I am looking at a > couple of contentious aspects of the statement of responsibility relating > to the title proper where I think there are three areas that require some > decision on policy:**** > > **1. **Which (or how many) statements of responsibility are to be > regarded as core.**** > > **2. **Statements of responsibility naming more than three persons > (2.4.1.5).**** > > **3. **Abridging statements of responsibility (2.4.1.4).**** > > ** ** > > It is the third one which confuses me most. The rule states “Transcribe a > statement of responsibility in the form in which it appears on the source > of information.” The examples that follow contain no titles (Mr, Dr, Earl) > except those that would have been retained under AACR2 and no affiliations > (…professor of History at the University of Biggleswade) at all.**** > > ** ** > > However, the Optional Omission beneath which says “Abridge a statement of > responsibility only if it can be abridged without loss of essential > information” has examples with all of this information in, e.g. “by Harry > Smith // Source of information reads: by Dr. Harry Smith”. The option seems > curiously vague about what can/should be omitted if the option is followed, > and why.**** > > ** ** > > Is this basically a case of the examples of the main rule not catching up > and so being illustrative of AACR2 rules rather than RDA? I notice, looking > at the really helpful LC training materials and BL workflow, that the point > is made more explicitly there so I think I am happy with what is intended, > but I am uncomfortable having to interpret the meaning of a rule based on > third party training and policy documentation, if that makes sense.**** > > ** ** > > Many thanks,**** > > ** ** > > Tom**** > > ** ** > > ---**** > > ** ** > > Thomas Meehan**** > > Head of Current Cataloguing**** > > Library Services**** > > University College London**** > > Gower Street**** > > London WC1E 6BT**** > > ** ** > > t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk**** > > ** ** >
