I'm afraid Mac and I will have to live with this disagreement then,
because after some more thinking about his and Thomas' arguments I find
that I still can't be convinced.
This may be simply due to the fact that in German cataloging, we always
record "with contributions by" statements in the title and statement of
responsibility area. We don't use contents notes (505), so this wouldn't
be an alternative. Instead, we usually provide a scan of the table of
contents, or sometimes make individual records for each article, which
are then linked to the record for the collection as a whole. I just
explained this in a posting to Autocat the other day:
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.education.libraries.autocat/53993
Actually, I had thought that recording this kind of statement in 245 $c
was the usual thing in AACR2 as well, but I may have been wrong. Still,
I remember the discussion we had some time ago about Ben's example:
Mit Beiträgen von/With contributions by ...
hg. von/ed. by ...
I know Ben wanted to include the first statement in 245 $c, and I can't
remember anybody objecting to this (we were only discussing which form
this should take).
Mac said:
SLC preferes to record the editors in 245/$c, but the contributing
authors in 505 and 700$a$t. Recording contributors in 245 can lead to
their being confused with joint authors of the whole, and the first
named being made main entry.
I don't share these reservations. Other librarians will know the type
and don't get confused, and our users are, I believe, not really
interested in our decisions about main entry (if they are aware of them,
in the first place).
Thomas pointed out that RDA knows different kinds of statements of
responsibility. I am quite aware of this, but I still see the "with
contributions by" statement as "relating to title proper". I think the
makers of the resource intended this as a statement of responsibility,
and that's why they have presented it as such. Thinking of the principle
of representation (0.4.3.4 "The data describing a resource should
reflect the resource's representation of itself.") I really don't
understand why we should record this information not as a statement of
responsibility, but as something else.
Thomas argued that the writer of an introduction is a contributor in the
RDA sense (i.e. somebody with a relationship to the expression), whereas
the authors of the essays are not. I accept that he's right on that and
that it's not the same case according to the logics of RDA. By the way,
I believe RDA is digressing from FRBR here, because there we read: "When
an expression is accompanied by augmentations, such as illustrations,
notes, glosses, etc. that are not integral to the intellectual or
artistic realization of the work, such augmentations are considered to
be separate expressions of their own separate work(s)." (p. 19f.)
But although the authors of the essays aren't contributors in the RDA
sense, I still think they fall under the scope of 2.4.2.1: "a statement
(...) 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." I think these people are responsible for the creation
of the intellectual or artistic content of the resource. Note that it
doesn't say they have to be creators of the work as a whole. I think the
curious phrasing is some kind of shorthand for what ISBD calls "of the
intellectual or artistic content of a work contained in the resource
described".
Heidrun
Mac wrote:
heidrun answered Thomas:
[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.
This is one of the rare instances in which I agree with Thomas as
opposed to you, wise Heidrun. That second statement, it seems to me,
relates to works within the resource, not the title proper of the
resource. I would transcribe the editor statement above in 245 /$c,
and the contributor one as a quoted note or with the their titles and
names in 505 contents.
The "related to the title proper" just gives me the excuse to avoid
confusion between contributors (not eligible for main entry) and joint
authors (the first of whom is). Whether this is the intent of the
phrase I've no idea. It is just a matter of pragmatism for me. It
would be redundant to list those folk in 245 /$c, and repeat them in
505.
I am comfortable having "with a preface by John Doe" or "with
portraits of family members" being transcribed after 245 /$c ; as
other title information, if that is the order on the resource.
A rationale for this is difficult, just that these latter two are not
likely to be considered for main entry, nor are they candidates for a
contents note.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
--
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
