It would be useful to enumerate how RDA treats all the different types of statements of responsibility.
In a similar situation, RDA limits the use of the statement of responsibility relating to series. RDA instructs to include it only if necessary for the identification of the series. In many situations, a book in a series by one author will have a statement of responsibility relating to title proper, and a series statement which may be accompanied by the author's name on another page. The logic in RDA for limiting the recording of the statement of responsibility relating to series would seem to be because it's redundant when responsibility for a title in the series is already indicated in the statement of responsibility relating to the title proper. It's always assumed that there must be a relationship between the title proper and those named in the statement of responsibility. Carried forward from AACR2 is the idea of words for function or role in statements of responsibility, and RDA 2.4.1.7 instructs to add words to clarify the role of those named in the statement of responsibility and the title, designation of edition, etc. In the case of recording "with contributions by ..." for authors responsible for separate works that could be included in a contents note, then it might make sense to add it as a statement of responsibility relating to title proper if the contents note doesn't include statements of responsibility. But it would also be important to clarify the role of those named in the statement of responsibility as creators of separate works in a compilation. Without such clarification then one would incorrectly assume that those named are responsible in a collaborative sense for the work (with the first named becoming part of the authorized access point for the work, i.e. the main entry heading). I don't think there's any way around this-- the "with contributions by ..." statement for names associated with separate titles in a contents note is not the same as a statement of responsibility listing names that are jointly responsible for the content, and where the first named becomes part of the authorized access point for the work (which, unlike in AACR2, happens 100 percent of the time in RDA because of the elimination of the rule of three for statements listing four or more persons or bodies responsible for the content of the work). To avoid any confusion I would put such a statement into the RDA element Note on Statement of Responsibility (just a 500 note in MARC). RDA 18.6 provides an instruction to make such notes to explain relationships. I would reference the RDA principles of accuracy (RDA 0.4.3.5) and of attribution (RDA 0.4.3.6) which would mean recording data that reflects attributions of responsibility in such a way to clarify responsibility for creative or intellectual content. List of instructions in RDA related to statements of responsibility: Statement of responsibility (for all situations) - if more than one, record in order indicated by the sequence, layout or typography - if sequence is ambiguous, record in the order that makes the most sense Statement of responsibility relating to title proper - first statement is core - if not recording all statements, give preference to those identifying creators of the intellectual or artistic content; in case of doubt, record the first statement Statement of responsibility relating to the edition - in case of doubt, or if there is no designation of edition, record as statement of responsibility relating to title proper - when describing the first edition, record all statements as statements of responsibility relating to title proper Statement of responsibility relating to named revision of an edition - generally apply; no special instructions Statement of responsibility relating to series - record only if considered necessary for identification of the series Structured description (such as a Contents note, which can include statements of responsibility) - full or partial description of the related resource using the same order of elements that is used for the resource being described Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library ________________________________ From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller [wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de] Sent: May-12-13 5:48 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] What to include in statement of responsibility 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<mailto: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<http://www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi>
