> -----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: May-11-13 4:31 PM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Abridging statement of responsibility > > 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".
But not "contributing to the realization"-- this is for expression level roles, such as the writer of a forward, who contributes to the realization of existing intellectual or creative content. It would be up to cataloguer's judgment to add them as a subsequent statement of responsibility relating to the title proper. Do they help in identifying the manifestation? If they appear as statements of responsibility in the contents note then the title page statement would be redundant. I see this as similar to a prominent series statement on the title page. It goes into own separate series statement field, and it may have its own statement of responsibility. > > 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". In RDA, there's a difference between "Statement of Responsibility" and "Statement of responsibility relating to the title proper". There are many kinds of statements of responsibility (such as related to edition, or to series), and they reappear in structured descriptions such as contents notes. > 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". No, see note above. An introduction is related to the expression-- to a realization of a work. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
