Jim, The element being discussed is the Statement of responsibility relating to title proper (RDA 2.4.2). So, before you get to this element, you have already selected the title proper. Then, you follow 2.4.2.4: "If a statement of responsibility relating to title proper appears on the source of information in more than one language or script, record the statement in the language or script of the title proper. If this criterion does not apply, record the statement that appears first."
Also, I agree that if it takes too much time to decide which is first, I'd go beyond the core requirement (the first) and give all. My personal opinion is that giving all statements in different languages/scripts is important because the cataloger cannot know which will most serve which user. Judy On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:15 AM, James Agenbroad <jjagenbr...@aol.com>wrote: > Dear Judy, > Since retiring in 2003 I have not been closely following discussions > of RDA. It seems to me that in some cases "first statement of > responsibility" will be difficult or impossible to ascertain. I do not > think it is far-fetched it imagine: 1. A bilingual text with one > right-to-left language (e.g. Hebrew, Arabic, Persian or Yiddish (sometimes > called HAPI though several languages such as Urdu and Pushtu also use > Arabic script)) and one left-to-right language (e.g. English, French, > Russian, Greek, etc. 2. There is a title page at each end of the book. 3. > Each contains a statement of responsibility, the author's name, in each > language *on the same line.* How can one determine which is the first > statement of responsibility? One might try to determine if one language is > a translation of the other but some authors can write in several languages > or it may not say. In such cases it might be best to say something along > the lines of "record the first statement of responsibility when it can be > easily determined but give several when priority can not be easily > determined". To me, recording the extra text would seem preferable to > making catalogers search for a way to decide which is first. > Regards, Jim Agenbroad ( jjagenb...@aol.com ) > On May 10, 2013, at 11:21 AM, JSC Secretary wrote: > > 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**** >> >> ** ** >> > > >
