Thomas,
It's probably even less complicated than that.
The name of the specific RDA element under discussion is "Statement of
responsibility relating to title proper" which means a statement listing authors for
separately titled pieces within the resource is not likely related to the title proper in
question.
Now you get me confused. Are we talking about the same thing? I'm
thinking of a title page which looks like this:
[Title proper of the resource]
Edited by A and B
With contributions by C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K
In my opinion there are two instances here of the element "statement of
responsibility relating to title proper", whereas you seem to think that
only the first one belongs to this element.
The definition in RDA 2.4.2.1 says: "A statement of responsibility
relating to title proper is a statement associated with the title proper
of a resource that relates to the identification and/or function of any
persons, families, or corporate bodies responsible for the creation of,
or contributing to the realization of, the intellectual or artistic
content of the resource."
The "with contributions by" statement ist certainly associated with the
title proper in the case discussed. What is perhaps debatable is the
exact meaning of "the intellectual or artistic content of the resource".
Although the people named aren't creators of the work as a whole, I'd
still say that they had something to do with "the intellectual or
artistic content of the resource".
It's interesting to compare RDA's definition with the one in ISBD 1.4:
"A statement of responsibility consists of one or more names, phrases,
or groups of characters relating to the identification and/or function
of any persons or corporate bodies responsible for or contributing to
the creation or realisation of the intellectual or artistic content of a
work contained in the resource described."
Note the "of a work contained in the resource described". There can't be
any doubt that the "with contributions by" type falls under this
definition. I find it hard to believe that RDA should have wanted to
express a different meaning here - perhaps it was just sloppiness (or a
rare attempt to make it short)?
If we really read RDA's definition to mean "Only a statement naming
either creator(s) or contributors (in the RDA sense) of the work as a
whole can be a statement of responsibility relating to title proper",
this would lead to odd results. Not only the "with contributions of"
type would not meet the criteria. The same would go for statements like
"with an introduction by".
Addendum: I've just noticed that there is in fact an example "with a
foreword by Scottie Fitzgerald Smith" in 2.4.1.6, i.e. in the general
chapter on statements of responsibility. So this type seems to be all
right as a statement of responsibility. Note that the general definition
in 2.4.1.1 is identically phrased as the one in 2.4.2.1: "a statement
relating to the identification and/or function of any persons, families,
or corporate bodies responsible for the creation of, or contributing to
the realization of, the intellectual or artistic content of a resource."
Heidrun
--
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
