Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Roslyn Smith wrote:


Another possibility which occurred to me was a statement of responsibility 
along these lines:

Madeleine Albright [and 57 others including Carla Del Ponte and Joschka 
Fischer].

Now this may be just the thing. I like this solution very much. In a 
way, it's a sort of compromise between Thomas Brenndorfer's view and my 
own: The information about names further down the list would be given 
within the statement of responsibility (not in a note) but it's given in 
a different way (not transcribed).


Heidrun


--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Adam,

I think the problem with this solution is that it's not so easy to 
interpret: The marks of omission certainly show where names have been 
left out. But it's not so clear how many names there really were in the 
list on the source of information: What about the omitted names which 
are indicated by the ellipses - are these included in the "13 others"? 
Or did the list consist of more than 16 names (i.e. the three 
transcribed plus the 13 explicitly stated plus an unknown number of 
names indicated by the ellipses)?


Sorry for the hairsplitting...

Heidrun




Am 07.02.2013 20:56, schrieb Adam L. Schiff:
If the point is to "transcribe" then I don't see how one could 
accurately transcribe the first, sixth, and fifteenth names without 
some indication that you've omitting names in between.  One could do 
this perhaps using ellipses:


/ by John Smith ... Robert Jones ... Louise Jefferson [and 13 others].

But since RDA allows you to provide access points for creators and 
contributors without naming them in the statement of responsibility, 
I'm not sure that the instruction needs changing. But perhaps the 
instruction should say always record the first name in each statement 
and optionally add any other names considered important.


^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~

On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:


Barbara Tillett wrote:

You are right the rules do not specifically say you can do it, but 
it is definitely in the spirit of RDA and perhaps you'd like to work 
with Christine Frodl to propose an adjustment to the way RDA states 
this? - Barbara


I'll certainly discuss this with Christine Frodl and the other 
members of the German RDA implementation group, and see whether we 
can submit a proposal. Personally, I'd be very willing to help make 
RDA conform to its spirit ;-)


At first glance, perhaps what's needed is really only a slight change 
in wording. Benjamin has already suggested "omit any but the first of 
each group of such persons, families, or bodies" instead of "omit all 
but". Another way might be: "always record the first name of each 
group of such persons, families, or bodies. Other names may be omitted."


An example according to the lines I suggested yesterday could be 
added, e.g.:


[contributions by] Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, Carl 
Bildt [and 55 others]
Source of information lists 58 names in alphabetical order, starting 
with Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann and Carl Bildt


The tricky thing is what to do if for some reason someone wanted to 
transcribe not simply the first three, five or ten names, but perhaps 
especially the ninth and the 16th name in the list (in my example, 
Carla Del Ponte and Joschka Fischer). Should it then be possible to 
transcribe the statement in question like this (although the three 
names are not next to each other in the source of information):


[contributions by] Madeleine Albright, Carla Del Ponte, Joschka 
Fischer [and 55 others]


Or do we feel it would be necessary to indicate that there are seven 
other names between Albright and Del Ponte, and another six between 
Del Ponte and Fischer? This might get awkward...


Heidrun

--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi





--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Roslyn Smith]

I too like Thomas Brenndorfer's suggestion of the optional omission in the 
statement of responsibility, accompanied by a note listing an omitted important 
name(s), e.g. a professor at one's university.

Another possibility which occurred to me was a statement of responsibility 
along these lines:

Madeleine Albright [and 57 others including Carla Del Ponte and Joschka 
Fischer].


Roslyn Smith 

Cataloguing Dept, General Library 
University of Auckland
Private Bag 92019, Auckland Mail Centre 
Auckland 1142, NEW ZEALAND

 

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas
Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013 5:48 a.m.
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons 
etc.



One could choose the optional omission and supply the element Note on Statement 
of Responsibility (RDA 2.20.3) -- "... a note providing information on a 
person, family or corporate body not named in the statement of responsibility 
..."

So the statement of responsibility could have the first named only, and the 
note could list additional names-- whichever names are important for 
"identification or access" (RDA 2.20.3.5). No change to existing 

Example:

Statement of responsibility relating to title proper: Madeleine Albright [and 
57 others]

Note on statement of responsibility: Additional creators: Franz-Lothar Altmann 
and Carl Bildt



This also dovetails in with RDA 18.6, which instructs to add explanatory notes 
for relationships of creators, contributors, etc. to the resource.

One other observation: the role of the relationship designator is connected to 
the relationship between specific entities like Creator <> Work. Many 
"explanatory" or "justification" statements or notes are embedded in the 
Manifestation level. While those statements and notes do serve some user tasks 
(such as "identify"), the idea now is that bibliographic data about 
relationships could exist in different contexts, which means greater weight 
would be given to relationship designators for carrying the burden of 
explaining the relationship.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Relator codes (was: Statement of responsibility ...)

[Gene Fieg]

A question I asked myself this morning about these relater codes.
If a patron, enters a personal name and is given the name, plus, author,
editor, compiler, etc. options, I wonder if the patron will say to
him/herself, "Geez, was he the author, or was he just the compiler.  Gee,
maybe I should go home and check the citation."

I think it will be easier on the patron to enter by personal name in this
case and if the list is too long, limit key word or something like it.  I
am not too sure if relators will be that helpful for patrons--or only for
patrons who know* exactly *how that person is related to the work and the
relator has been entered correctly.  I mean, is a "compiler" an "author" or
not?

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:52 AM, J. McRee Elrod  wrote:

> Rita Lifton asked:
>
> >Referring to the statement that "many libraries are planning to strip
> >off $4 and/or $e ...", are you saying that the subfields would be
> ?entered in cataloging and then suppressed? Just wanted to understand.
>
> When SLC begins RDA cataloguing (when a majority of derived records
> are RDA, April or May?) we intend to enter $4 relationship codes (in
> accordance with LAC policy), which could be exported for clients as
> $eterms in either English or French (drawn the code definitions, which
> often differ from RDA terms).
>
> So far, only one client has said they want relator terms.  All others
> want them removed.  Therefore it is important to have added entries
> justified in the description so that the relationship is known in the
> absence of a code or term.  (There is the problem of unrelated access
> points being retained when a record for one manifestation is edited to
> create a record for another, e.g., the English and French versions of
> the same work, universal for Canadian Federal documents.)
>
> Of course if in the future we have a client whose ILS can translate
> the codes, we would export the codes for them.
>
> Our major clients these days are e-aggregators and e-publishers, who
> in turn make records available to libraries with a variety of ILS
> capabilities.  We are offering them the option of having both RDA and
> AACR2 compatible versions of the records, at little additional cost.
>
> So yes, we will enter the codes, but usually take them out on export;
> most small libraries would not have the IT staff to take them out or
> suppress them.
>
> We will leave the codes in for records loaded to OCLC.  We don't load
> all our records to OCLC, just for those aggregators and publishers who
> want OCNs in their records.  LAC has stopped loading those records
> because they lack Canadian ILL locations, but many are loaded to LAC by
> libraries who acquire them from the aggregator or publisher; those may
> lack the codes.  I have been unable to persuade LAC to see Amicus as a
> source of catalogue records as well as a source of ILL locations.
>
> I doubt if many libraries doing their own cataloguing would enter $4
> or $e if they don't intend to utilize them.  We will do so since we
> use the same records for all clients, thus they must be added if even
> one client wants them.
>
>
>__   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
>   {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   
> HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>   ___} |__ \__
>



-- 
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu

Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email.  The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University.  It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

Including the sequence of the first few named and then truncating the statement 
with [and x others] seems like a reasonable and flexible option.

But I do view the use of [and x others] as itself violating the principle of 
representation, and perhaps that is why the LC-PCC PS has indicated that they 
will not generally use the optional omission.

The first named does have a connection with the name potentially used in the 
authorized access point for the work, so there is a stronger reason for the 
first named versus the second named. The access point for that first named is 
also a core element (essentially, this is how RDA restates the main entry 
rule—as in AACR2, one name is more important than others, and receives a spot 
in the 100 field).

As for the others that are named, I would be more comfortable transcribing the 
entire statement. In those exceptional cases with a huge number of names, it 
seems to me that potentially none of the names are that important (except the 
first named which might be used in the authorized access point), or that only 
select names would be useful for the users of the library, and so I would more 
comfortable putting those in a note, likely with some explanation as to why I 
pulled those specific names out of the statement of responsibility.

I don’t see much discernible value in setting an arbitrary cut-off—if given a 
choice between transcribing a full statement of responsibility and making 
authority records for the first four or five names I would likely choose 
transcribing the whole statement of responsibility as more useful, if only for 
keyword searching. There might even be some workflow logic to that in that 
authorized access points can be added later if needed and the statement of 
responsibility wouldn’t have to be adjusted with some other arbitrary cut-off.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: February-07-13 3:11 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons 
etc.

Thomas,

If I understand your reasoning correctly, your main concern is with the case of 
transcribing selected names from further down the list (which, as I've tried to 
explain, I would see as an exception and not as the rule). I see what you mean, 
although I still think that it wouldn't be much of a problem for our users as 
long as something like "[and 38 others]" makes it clear that the statement is 
not complete.

But you haven't mentioned the case from which the whole discussion originated: 
The question whether it should be allowed to transcribe e.g. "with 
contributions by A, B, C, D [and 16 others]" instead of "with contributions by 
A [and 19 others]", with A, B, C and D being the first names in the list. Do 
you see problems there as well?

I'd argue that the first version meets the principle of representation better 
than the second.

Heidrun



On 07.02.2013 19:50, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
Perhaps, but one should always refer back to the RDA objectives and principles, 
and FRBR/FRAD user tasks.

At one point in RDA development, the statement of responsibility was not going 
to be considered a core element. It was added back in as a core element. The 
core element set’s primary concern is the Identify user task, where resources 
have to be sufficiently differentiated from each other. The statement of 
responsibility also has utility in confirming that the resource sought is the 
one that matches the search criteria.

RDA’s principle of representation (RDA 0.4.3.4) says that the data describing a 
resource should reflect the resource’s representation of itself.

I think a highly elliptical statement, with names selected here and there, 
might violate the principle of representation, as people also match that 
statement of responsibility as recorded with what is on the resource.

And if not all names are to be recorded even in a note, it seems best to 
accompany the recording of those select names with a brief explanation. It 
seems easier to just list names in a note, separated by commas, then to have an 
awkward-looking statement of responsibility filled with gaps and unexplained 
appearances of some names and not others.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: February-07-13 1:39 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons 
etc.

Thomas Brenndorfer wrote:
AACR2 also says “not named in a statement of responsibility” but its 
application extended to situations when all but the first named in a 
transcribed statement of responsibility were omitted.

Thanks for this information; I didn't know that

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Thomas,

If I understand your reasoning correctly, your main concern is with the 
case of transcribing selected names from further down the list (which, 
as I've tried to explain, I would see as an exception and not as the 
rule). I see what you mean, although I still think that it wouldn't be 
much of a problem for our users as long as something like "[and 38 
others]" makes it clear that the statement is not complete.


But you haven't mentioned the case from which the whole discussion 
originated: The question whether it should be allowed to transcribe e.g. 
"with contributions by A, B, C, D [and 16 others]" instead of "with 
contributions by A [and 19 others]", with A, B, C and D being the first 
names in the list. Do you see problems there as well?


I'd argue that the first version meets the principle of representation 
better than the second.


Heidrun



On 07.02.2013 19:50, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:


Perhaps, but one should always refer back to the RDA objectives and 
principles, and FRBR/FRAD user tasks.


At one point in RDA development, the statement of responsibility was 
not going to be considered a core element. It was added back in as a 
core element. The core element set’s primary concern is the Identify 
user task, where resources have to be sufficiently differentiated from 
each other. The statement of responsibility also has utility in 
confirming that the resource sought is the one that matches the search 
criteria.


RDA’s principle of representation (RDA 0.4.3.4) says that the data 
describing a resource should reflect the resource’s representation of 
itself.


I think a highly elliptical statement, with names selected here and 
there, might violate the principle of representation, as people also 
match that statement of responsibility as recorded with what is on the 
resource.


And if not all names are to be recorded even in a note, it seems best 
to accompany the recording of those select names with a brief 
explanation. It seems easier to just list names in a note, separated 
by commas, then to have an awkward-looking statement of responsibility 
filled with gaps and unexplained appearances of some names and not others.


Thomas Brenndorfer

Guelph Public Library

*From:*Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and 
Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Heidrun 
Wiesenmüller

*Sent:* February-07-13 1:39 PM
*To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than 
three persons etc.


Thomas Brenndorfer wrote:

AACR2 also says “not named in a statement of responsibility” but
its application extended to situations when all but the first
named in a transcribed statement of responsibility were omitted.


Thanks for this information; I didn't know that.

Nonetheless, the idea doesn't really appeal to me. In the RAK rules, 
there is a very basic principle which says that notes are normally 
used only to give information which is not apparent from the rest of 
the bibliographic description. I think this is a sound idea.


True, if we choose not to transcribe a name in a s-o-r, then this 
information isn't apparent from the rest of the bibliographic 
description, so we could give it in a note. But I'd still say it would 
be better to amend the s-o-r instead of using a note as some sort of 
"workaround".


Heidrun




--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi  



--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[J. McRee Elrod]

Thomas said:

>One could choose the optional omission and supply the element Note on
>Statement of Responsibility (RDA 2.20.3) -- "... a note providing
>information on a person, family or corporate body not named in the
>statement of responsibility ..."

SLC has been doing that for years for such things as conference
proceedings and continuing education workshops.  We don't need a new
set of rules to cover such a situation.

It seems to me most of the advantages touted for RDA could have been
more cheaply and simply done by AACR2/MARC21 revisions.

When/if we actually do have WEMI records, or W/I records, that might
change.  If we are to have Bibframe W/I records, RDA needs to be
rearranged to reflect what we would then doing.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Relator codes (was: Statement of responsibility ...)

[J. McRee Elrod]

Rita Lifton asked:

>Referring to the statement that "many libraries are planning to strip
>off $4 and/or $e ...", are you saying that the subfields would be
?entered in cataloging and then suppressed? Just wanted to understand.

When SLC begins RDA cataloguing (when a majority of derived records
are RDA, April or May?) we intend to enter $4 relationship codes (in
accordance with LAC policy), which could be exported for clients as
$eterms in either English or French (drawn the code definitions, which
often differ from RDA terms).

So far, only one client has said they want relator terms.  All others
want them removed.  Therefore it is important to have added entries
justified in the description so that the relationship is known in the
absence of a code or term.  (There is the problem of unrelated access
points being retained when a record for one manifestation is edited to
create a record for another, e.g., the English and French versions of
the same work, universal for Canadian Federal documents.)

Of course if in the future we have a client whose ILS can translate
the codes, we would export the codes for them.

Our major clients these days are e-aggregators and e-publishers, who
in turn make records available to libraries with a variety of ILS
capabilities.  We are offering them the option of having both RDA and
AACR2 compatible versions of the records, at little additional cost.

So yes, we will enter the codes, but usually take them out on export;
most small libraries would not have the IT staff to take them out or
suppress them.  

We will leave the codes in for records loaded to OCLC.  We don't load
all our records to OCLC, just for those aggregators and publishers who
want OCNs in their records.  LAC has stopped loading those records
because they lack Canadian ILL locations, but many are loaded to LAC by
libraries who acquire them from the aggregator or publisher; those may
lack the codes.  I have been unable to persuade LAC to see Amicus as a
source of catalogue records as well as a source of ILL locations.

I doubt if many libraries doing their own cataloguing would enter $4
or $e if they don't intend to utilize them.  We will do so since we
use the same records for all clients, thus they must be added if even
one client wants them.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[J. McRee Elrod]

Felicity Dykes said:

>From CONSER standard record documentation, 07/22/2010:  245 $c:  It
>is not required to transcribe a statement of responsibility of any
>kind in field 245 $c. 

For items of mixed responsibility we do not record a 245/$c, but added
entries are justified in notes, e.g., for DVDs 508 noncast credits,
and 511 cast credits.  Notes justifying added entries for serials are
more rare, but do exist, e.g., a sponsoring body differing from the
publisher.

It is important that added entries be justified, not where in the
description they are justified.  For serials, the relationship can
change over time, so best kept out of 245/$c.

Let us hope for an LCPS/PCC calling for justification as the Germans
are doing, if we can't get that change into RDA.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Adam L. Schiff]

If the point is to "transcribe" then I don't see how one could accurately 
transcribe the first, sixth, and fifteenth names without some indication that you've 
omitting names in between.  One could do this perhaps using ellipses:

/ by John Smith ... Robert Jones ... Louise Jefferson [and 13 others].

But since RDA allows you to provide access points for creators and contributors 
without naming them in the statement of responsibility, I'm not sure that the 
instruction needs changing.  But perhaps the instruction should say always 
record the first name in each statement and optionally add any other names 
considered important.

^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~

On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:


Barbara Tillett wrote:

You are right the rules do not specifically say you can do it, but it is 
definitely in the spirit of RDA and perhaps you'd like to work with 
Christine Frodl to propose an adjustment to the way RDA states this? - 
Barbara


I'll certainly discuss this with Christine Frodl and the other members of the 
German RDA implementation group, and see whether we can submit a proposal. 
Personally, I'd be very willing to help make RDA conform to its spirit ;-)


At first glance, perhaps what's needed is really only a slight change in 
wording. Benjamin has already suggested "omit any but the first of each group 
of such persons, families, or bodies" instead of "omit all but". Another way 
might be: "always record the first name of each group of such persons, 
families, or bodies. Other names may be omitted."


An example according to the lines I suggested yesterday could be added, e.g.:

[contributions by] Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, Carl Bildt [and 
55 others]
Source of information lists 58 names in alphabetical order, starting with 
Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann and Carl Bildt


The tricky thing is what to do if for some reason someone wanted to 
transcribe not simply the first three, five or ten names, but perhaps 
especially the ninth and the 16th name in the list (in my example, Carla Del 
Ponte and Joschka Fischer). Should it then be possible to transcribe the 
statement in question like this (although the three names are not next to 
each other in the source of information):


[contributions by] Madeleine Albright, Carla Del Ponte, Joschka Fischer [and 
55 others]


Or do we feel it would be necessary to indicate that there are seven other 
names between Albright and Del Ponte, and another six between Del Ponte and 
Fischer? This might get awkward...


Heidrun

--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Shana McDanold wrote:


I really like your suggested local policy:

(...)

Permission to suggest it for local use at my institution?


Absolutely :-)

Heidrun

--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Joan Wang]

I think that LCC-PCC PS is an option for omitting more than three names.
There should be an alternative for omitting how many names. Apparently
cataloging agencies can have a choice. Once a local decision has been made,
it should be consistently applied across records.

I am learning from different perspectives. Appreciate it.

Thanks.
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller <
wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote:

>  Thomas Brenndorfer wrote:
>
>  AACR2 also says “not named in a statement of responsibility” but its
> application extended to situations when all but the first named in a
> transcribed statement of responsibility were omitted.
>
>
> Thanks for this information; I didn't know that.
>
> Nonetheless, the idea doesn't really appeal to me. In the RAK rules, there
> is a very basic principle which says that notes are normally used only to
> give information which is not apparent from the rest of the bibliographic
> description. I think this is a sound idea.
>
> True, if we choose not to transcribe a name in a s-o-r, then this
> information isn't apparent from the rest of the bibliographic description,
> so we could give it in a note. But I'd still say it would be better to
> amend the s-o-r instead of using a note as some sort of "workaround".
>
> Heidrun
>
>
>
> --
> -
> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
> Stuttgart Media University
> Faculty of Information and Communication
> Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germanywww.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
>
>


-- 
Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D.
Cataloger -- CMC
Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office)
6725 Goshen Road
Edwardsville, IL 62025
618.656.3216x409
618.656.9401Fax

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Shana McDanold]

I didn't think you specifically were advocating cherry picking. I was
getting that vibe from other posts in this particular thread. And in my
experience the term "relevant" is basically a disguise for "cherry picking"
and does vary from institution to institution. A better/more complete
policy than "pick the relevant names" is needed. Defining "relevant" is key
(e.g. is someone is designated as "primary" then yes, they're relevant even
if they're the last name on the list!).

I really like your suggested local policy:

(1) Whenever possible, use the standard rule, i.e. transcribe all names.
(2) If this isn't possible, use the optional omission.
(3) When using the optional omission, do not only give the first name, but
the first x names ("x" being a number agreed on in your institution or a
standard which you make up for yourself and use consistently).
(4) Give names of persons, who are not listed under the first x names, only
for important reasons: Either because the person has special responsibility
(e.g. a main actor in a movie, who is nonethless listed at the end because
his or her surname starts with a "Z") or if there are special local
requirements (e.g. if the person in question is a professor at your
University and you're supposed to document that). In this case, transcribe
the first x names plus the names of the additional person(s).

Permission to suggest it for local use at my institution?

Thanks,
-Shana

*
Shana L. McDanold
Head, Metadata Services
Georgetown University Library
37th and O Streets, N.W.
Washington, DC  20057
(202) 687-3356
sm2...@georgetown.edu



On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller <
wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote:

>  Shana,
>
> It wasn't my intention to advocate arbitrary "cherry picking". I believe
> that the case I mentioned would (or should) appear only rarely. It probably
> got too much emphasis in the discussion here simply because it is a rather
> tricky one, but I still felt we should know how to handle it. I'd see it,
> as Ben called it, "as a practice of last resort, when you are faced with an
> extensive S-o-R and additional local requirements (for example: your
> library wants to record/trace people associated with your institution no
> matter where they appear in the s-o-r)."
>
> A good policy might, I believe, run like this:
>
> (1) Whenever possible, use the standard rule, i.e. transcribe all names.
> (2) If this isn't possible, use the optional omission.
> (3) When using the optional omission, do not only give the first name, but
> the first x names ("x" being a number agreed on in your institution or a
> standard which you make up for yourself and use consistently).
> (4) Give names of persons, who are not listed under the first x names,
> only for important reasons: Either because the person has special
> responsibility (e.g. a main actor in a movie, who is nonethless listed at
> the end because his or her surname starts with a "Z") or if there are
> special local requirements (e.g. if the person in question is a professor
> at your University and you're supposed to document that). In this case,
> transcribe the first x names plus the names of the additional person(s).
>
> Heidrun
>
>
>
>
>
> On 07.02.2013 18:36, Shana McDanold wrote:
>
> The idea of "cherry picking" who to include and who to exclude from the
> statement of responsibility really makes me uncomfortable. The idea of
> relevancy is very subjective depending on context, library, etc. Remember
> you can always pull out additional creators/access points LOCALLY as
> needed.
>
>  If someone is indicated to be the "primary" author/creator, much like
> there are "primary researchers" and assistant researchers, and you have a
> really long list of authors/creators on the piece, then yes, make sure you
> include them.
>
>  I also agree that putting in seemingly random marks of omission may be
> problematic, and support the solution offered by Heidrun Wiesenmuller:
> - transcribe the first name
> - transcribe other names, which you want to give, in the order in which
> they appear in the statement of responsibility - WITH THE CAVEAT of not
> cherry picking and using indicators on the piece itself to identify those
> with primary responsibilities
> - do not indicate if you've left out other names between the ones
> transcribed
> - instead summarize what was left out at the end
>
>  If you're omitting names in the statement of responsibility, then either
> omit consistently for all the names or not, including whether or not you
> list additional information like titles/degrees/etc. Don't "cherry pick"
> who to include or what to include with each name on a name by name basis.
>
>  I also really want to stress the "be consistent" message. Not across all
> records (different materials may warrant different decisions about options)
> but WITHIN a record be consistent. It truly is important for each record
> to be consistent internally. There will be wide variation from one record
> 

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

Perhaps, but one should always refer back to the RDA objectives and principles, 
and FRBR/FRAD user tasks.

At one point in RDA development, the statement of responsibility was not going 
to be considered a core element. It was added back in as a core element. The 
core element set’s primary concern is the Identify user task, where resources 
have to be sufficiently differentiated from each other. The statement of 
responsibility also has utility in confirming that the resource sought is the 
one that matches the search criteria.

RDA’s principle of representation (RDA 0.4.3.4) says that the data describing a 
resource should reflect the resource’s representation of itself.

I think a highly elliptical statement, with names selected here and there, 
might violate the principle of representation, as people also match that 
statement of responsibility as recorded with what is on the resource.

And if not all names are to be recorded even in a note, it seems best to 
accompany the recording of those select names with a brief explanation. It 
seems easier to just list names in a note, separated by commas, then to have an 
awkward-looking statement of responsibility filled with gaps and unexplained 
appearances of some names and not others.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: February-07-13 1:39 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons 
etc.

Thomas Brenndorfer wrote:
AACR2 also says “not named in a statement of responsibility” but its 
application extended to situations when all but the first named in a 
transcribed statement of responsibility were omitted.

Thanks for this information; I didn't know that.

Nonetheless, the idea doesn't really appeal to me. In the RAK rules, there is a 
very basic principle which says that notes are normally used only to give 
information which is not apparent from the rest of the bibliographic 
description. I think this is a sound idea.

True, if we choose not to transcribe a name in a s-o-r, then this information 
isn't apparent from the rest of the bibliographic description, so we could give 
it in a note. But I'd still say it would be better to amend the s-o-r instead 
of using a note as some sort of "workaround".

Heidrun





--

-

Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.

Stuttgart Media University

Faculty of Information and Communication

Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany

www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Thomas Brenndorfer wrote:

AACR2 also says “not named in a statement of responsibility” but its 
application extended to situations when all but the first named in a 
transcribed statement of responsibility were omitted.


Thanks for this information; I didn't know that.

Nonetheless, the idea doesn't really appeal to me. In the RAK rules, 
there is a very basic principle which says that notes are normally used 
only to give information which is not apparent from the rest of the 
bibliographic description. I think this is a sound idea.


True, if we choose not to transcribe a name in a s-o-r, then this 
information isn't apparent from the rest of the bibliographic 
description, so we could give it in a note. But I'd still say it would 
be better to amend the s-o-r instead of using a note as some sort of 
"workaround".


Heidrun



--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

Probably too much overthinking on what RDA 2.20.3 is saying, as it also covers 
“… or on other details relating to a statement of responsibility.” It does 
parallel the loophole in AACR2, where names missing in what was transcribed in 
a truncated statement of responsibility could be covered in notes (AACR2 
21.29F).

AACR2 also says “not named in a statement of responsibility” but its 
application extended to situations when all but the first named in a 
transcribed statement of responsibility were omitted.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: February-07-13 12:21 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons 
etc.

Thomas Brenndorfer wrote:



One could choose the optional omission and supply the element Note on Statement 
of Responsibility (RDA 2.20.3) -- "... a note providing information on a 
person, family or corporate body not named in the statement of responsibility 
..."



So the statement of responsibility could have the first named only, and the 
note could list additional names-- whichever names are important for 
"identification or access" (RDA 2.20.3.5).

I wouldn't feel comfortable with this solution. According to the defintion in 
2.20.3.1 a note on statement of responsibility  "is a note providing 
information on a person, family, or corporate body not named in a statement of 
responsibility". Mind, it doesn't say "a person etc. not transcribed in a 
statement of responsibility". In our case, the persons are certainly named in 
the statement of responsibility.

I think it would be a rather roundabout way to use a note for conveying 
information which is explicitly stated in the statement of responsibility. It 
would be much better to solve the problem by transcribing the relevant part of 
the statement of responsibility, i.e. adapting the optional omission in 2.4.1.5.

Heidrun






--

-

Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.

Stuttgart Media University

Faculty of Information and Communication

Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany

www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Shana,

It wasn't my intention to advocate arbitrary "cherry picking". I believe 
that the case I mentioned would (or should) appear only rarely. It 
probably got too much emphasis in the discussion here simply because it 
is a rather tricky one, but I still felt we should know how to handle 
it. I'd see it, as Ben called it, "as a practice of last resort, when 
you are faced with an extensive S-o-R and additional local requirements 
(for example: your library wants to record/trace people associated with 
your institution no matter where they appear in the s-o-r)."


A good policy might, I believe, run like this:

(1) Whenever possible, use the standard rule, i.e. transcribe all names.
(2) If this isn't possible, use the optional omission.
(3) When using the optional omission, do not only give the first name, 
but the first x names ("x" being a number agreed on in your institution 
or a standard which you make up for yourself and use consistently).
(4) Give names of persons, who are not listed under the first x names, 
only for important reasons: Either because the person has special 
responsibility (e.g. a main actor in a movie, who is nonethless listed 
at the end because his or her surname starts with a "Z") or if there are 
special local requirements (e.g. if the person in question is a 
professor at your University and you're supposed to document that). In 
this case, transcribe the first x names plus the names of the additional 
person(s).


Heidrun




On 07.02.2013 18:36, Shana McDanold wrote:
The idea of "cherry picking" who to include and who to exclude from 
the statement of responsibility really makes me uncomfortable. The 
idea of relevancy is very subjective depending on context, library, 
etc. Remember you can always pull out additional creators/access 
points LOCALLY as needed.


If someone is indicated to be the "primary" author/creator, much like 
there are "primary researchers" and assistant researchers, and you 
have a really long list of authors/creators on the piece, then yes, 
make sure you include them.


I also agree that putting in seemingly random marks of omission may be 
problematic, and support the solution offered by Heidrun Wiesenmuller:

- transcribe the first name
- transcribe other names, which you want to give, in the order in 
which they appear in the statement of responsibility - WITH THE CAVEAT 
of not cherry picking and using indicators on the piece itself to 
identify those with primary responsibilities
- do not indicate if you've left out other names between the ones 
transcribed

- instead summarize what was left out at the end

If you're omitting names in the statement of responsibility, then 
either omit consistently for all the names or not, including whether 
or not you list additional information like titles/degrees/etc. Don't 
"cherry pick" who to include or what to include with each name on a 
name by name basis.


I also really want to stress the "be consistent" message. Not across 
all records (different materials may warrant different decisions about 
options) but WITHIN a record be consistent. It truly is important for 
each record to be consistent internally. There will be wide variation 
from one record to the next, but each record should be consistent 
internally regarding application of decisions regarding RDA options. 
Don't mix practice/policy on a single record.


Thanks,
-Shana

*
Shana L. McDanold
Head, Metadata Services
Georgetown University Library
37th and O Streets, N.W.
Washington, DC  20057
(202) 687-3356
sm2...@georgetown.edu 



On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller 
> wrote:


Thomas Brenndorfer wrote:


One could choose the optional omission and supply the element Note on Statement of 
Responsibility (RDA 2.20.3) -- "... a note providing information on a person, family 
or corporate body not named in the statement of responsibility ..."

So the statement of responsibility could have the first named only, and the note 
could list additional names-- whichever names are important for "identification or 
access" (RDA 2.20.3.5).


I wouldn't feel comfortable with this solution. According to the
defintion in 2.20.3.1 a note on statement of responsibility  "is a
note providing information on a person, family, or corporate body
not *named *in a statement of responsibility". Mind, it doesn't
say "a person etc. not *transcribed *in a statement of
responsibility". In our case, the persons are certainly named in
the statement of responsibility.

I think it would be a rather roundabout way to use a note for
conveying information which is explicitly stated in the statement
of responsibility. It would be much better to solve the problem by
transcribing the relevant part of the statement of responsibility,
i.e. adapting the optional omission in 2.4.1.5.

Heidrun





-- 

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

"In what sense does RDA suggest that SoRs are "recorded" and not "transcribed"? 
RDA 2.4.1.4 (Recording Statements of Responsibility) says, "Transcribe a 
statement of responsibility in the form in which it appears on the source of 
information. Apply the general guidelines on transcription given under 1.7. 
--Kathy Glennan"

Fair enough, they are transcribed.  I'm still just wrapping my head around the 
fact that, after being told numerous times that there is a difference between 
"recording" and "transcribing" under RDA, the latter is actually a subspecies 
of the former.  (The same way, in serials cataloging, we sometimes talk about 
"serials" and "journals" as two different things when "journal" is just a 
specific type of serial.)

Still, the transcription guidelines under 1.7 do not discuss how to omit 
information. That appears, as Heidrun points out, only to apply to particular 
elements (mainly in the title).  The assumption seems to have been that 
catalogers will never want or need to omit information anywhere other than in 
those specific instances.

"So I'd vote for a solution like this:
- transcribe the first name
- transcribe other names, which you want to give, in the order in which they 
appear in the statement of responsibility
- do not indicate if you've left out other names between the ones transcribed
- instead summarize what was left out at the end 

-- Heidrun Wiesenmüller"

I think I agree with this.  It's practical.  People with more descriptive needs 
(rare book, for example) may not.  

This strikes me as a practice of last resort, when you are faced with an 
extensive S-o-R and additional local requirements  (for example: your library 
wants to record/trace people associated with your institution no matter where 
they appear in the s-o-r).

--Ben


Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137


-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: Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:33 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons 
etc.

Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:

> If we were expected to transcribe the statement of responsibility, not just 
> record it, the use of the mark of omission would make perfect sense.  Yet, 
> the two Optional Omission instructions under 2.4.1.4 seem to suggest that 
> mark of omission in S-o-Rs has been denigrated under RDA.

Marks of omission don't seem to be totally outlawed in RDA, but they are 
certainly much reduced. We are still allowed to use them when abridging titles 
(2.3.1.4, optional omission), in title of series (2.12.2.3, exception), and for 
celestial cartographic content (7.4.4.3).


> But taking a step back, and trying to think about it from the user's 
> perspective: does it matter to your typical user that they know where 
> the omission occurs, or just that there has been an omission (in which 
> case, if they need to see the whole s-o-r for some reason they will 
> need to obtain the piece)? Honestly I don't know. :)

Personally, I think it would be o.k. not to indicate exactly where the omission 
(or the omissions) occurs. This might be more confusing than helpful.

So I'd vote for a solution like this:
- transcribe the first name
- transcribe other names, which you want to give, in the order in which they 
appear in the statement of responsibility
- do not indicate if you've left out other names between the ones transcribed
- instead summarize what was left out at the end

Heidrun



--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, 
Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Shana McDanold]

The idea of "cherry picking" who to include and who to exclude from the
statement of responsibility really makes me uncomfortable. The idea of
relevancy is very subjective depending on context, library, etc. Remember
you can always pull out additional creators/access points LOCALLY as needed.

If someone is indicated to be the "primary" author/creator, much like there
are "primary researchers" and assistant researchers, and you have a really
long list of authors/creators on the piece, then yes, make sure you include
them.

I also agree that putting in seemingly random marks of omission may be
problematic, and support the solution offered by Heidrun Wiesenmuller:
- transcribe the first name
- transcribe other names, which you want to give, in the order in which
they appear in the statement of responsibility - WITH THE CAVEAT of not
cherry picking and using indicators on the piece itself to identify those
with primary responsibilities
- do not indicate if you've left out other names between the ones
transcribed
- instead summarize what was left out at the end

If you're omitting names in the statement of responsibility, then either
omit consistently for all the names or not, including whether or not you
list additional information like titles/degrees/etc. Don't "cherry pick"
who to include or what to include with each name on a name by name basis.

I also really want to stress the "be consistent" message. Not across all
records (different materials may warrant different decisions about options)
but WITHIN a record be consistent. It truly is important for each record to
be consistent internally. There will be wide variation from one record to
the next, but each record should be consistent internally regarding
application of decisions regarding RDA options. Don't mix practice/policy
on a single record.

Thanks,
-Shana

*
Shana L. McDanold
Head, Metadata Services
Georgetown University Library
37th and O Streets, N.W.
Washington, DC  20057
(202) 687-3356
sm2...@georgetown.edu



On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller <
wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote:

>  Thomas Brenndorfer wrote:
>
>  One could choose the optional omission and supply the element Note on 
> Statement of Responsibility (RDA 2.20.3) -- "... a note providing information 
> on a person, family or corporate body not named in the statement of 
> responsibility ..."
>
> So the statement of responsibility could have the first named only, and the 
> note could list additional names-- whichever names are important for 
> "identification or access" (RDA 2.20.3.5).
>
>
> I wouldn't feel comfortable with this solution. According to the defintion
> in 2.20.3.1 a note on statement of responsibility  "is a note providing
> information on a person, family, or corporate body not *named *in a
> statement of responsibility". Mind, it doesn't say "a person etc. not 
> *transcribed
> *in a statement of responsibility". In our case, the persons are
> certainly named in the statement of responsibility.
>
> I think it would be a rather roundabout way to use a note for conveying
> information which is explicitly stated in the statement of responsibility.
> It would be much better to solve the problem by transcribing the relevant
> part of the statement of responsibility, i.e. adapting the optional
> omission in 2.4.1.5.
>
> Heidrun
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> -
> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
> Stuttgart Media University
> Faculty of Information and Communication
> Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germanywww.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
>
>

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:


If we were expected to transcribe the statement of responsibility, not just 
record it, the use of the mark of omission would make perfect sense.  Yet, the 
two Optional Omission instructions under 2.4.1.4 seem to suggest that mark of 
omission in S-o-Rs has been denigrated under RDA.


Marks of omission don't seem to be totally outlawed in RDA, but they are 
certainly much reduced. We are still allowed to use them when abridging 
titles (2.3.1.4, optional omission), in title of series (2.12.2.3, 
exception), and for celestial cartographic content (7.4.4.3).




But taking a step back, and trying to think about it from the user's 
perspective: does it matter to your typical user that they know where the 
omission occurs, or just that there has been an omission (in which case, if 
they need to see the whole s-o-r for some reason they will need to obtain the 
piece)? Honestly I don't know. :)


Personally, I think it would be o.k. not to indicate exactly where the 
omission (or the omissions) occurs. This might be more confusing than 
helpful.


So I'd vote for a solution like this:
- transcribe the first name
- transcribe other names, which you want to give, in the order in which 
they appear in the statement of responsibility
- do not indicate if you've left out other names between the ones 
transcribed

- instead summarize what was left out at the end

Heidrun



--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Thomas Brenndorfer wrote:


One could choose the optional omission and supply the element Note on Statement of 
Responsibility (RDA 2.20.3) -- "... a note providing information on a person, family 
or corporate body not named in the statement of responsibility ..."

So the statement of responsibility could have the first named only, and the note could 
list additional names-- whichever names are important for "identification or 
access" (RDA 2.20.3.5).


I wouldn't feel comfortable with this solution. According to the 
defintion in 2.20.3.1 a note on statement of responsibility  "is a note 
providing information on a person, family, or corporate body not *named 
*in a statement of responsibility". Mind, it doesn't say "a person etc. 
not *transcribed *in a statement of responsibility". In our case, the 
persons are certainly named in the statement of responsibility.


I think it would be a rather roundabout way to use a note for conveying 
information which is explicitly stated in the statement of 
responsibility. It would be much better to solve the problem by 
transcribing the relevant part of the statement of responsibility, i.e. 
adapting the optional omission in 2.4.1.5.


Heidrun





--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Joan Wang]

I would take Thomas's solution. It makes the 245 field consistent and neat.
Also, we can supply access points for other important persons. So users are
able to search them. My personal opinion.

Thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System


On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Brenndorfer, Thomas <
tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca> wrote:

>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
> > Sent: February-07-13 11:19 AM
> > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three
> > persons etc.
> >
> > Ben Abrahamse wrote:
> >
> > > * Though now, looking at RDA 2.4. again, I'm not 100% sure it's saying
> > > to record.  The heading for instruction 2.4.1.4 is "Recording
> > > statements of responsibility" but the first sentence in the
> > > instruction is, "Transcribe a statement of responsibility".
> >
> > In RDA, all of the data is "recorded".  It's just that for some of the
> elements,
> > the method of recording is specifically transcription.
> >
> > I wonder if it would be too weird to use the mark of omission, and have
> > something like:
> >
> >   Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, ... Carl Bildt [and 52
> > others]
> >
> > or:
> >
> >   Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, ... Carl Bildt [and 55
> > others]
> >
> > I'm not really sure about this!  The first one totally ignores the
> number of
> > names represented by the mark of omission.  The second one adds up all
> the
> > names omitted before and after Carl Bildt.  Either way, I'm not sure I
> like the
> > look of it.
> >
> > Kevin M. Randall
>
>
>
> One could choose the optional omission and supply the element Note on
> Statement of Responsibility (RDA 2.20.3) -- "... a note providing
> information on a person, family or corporate body not named in the
> statement of responsibility ..."
>
> So the statement of responsibility could have the first named only, and
> the note could list additional names-- whichever names are important for
> "identification or access" (RDA 2.20.3.5). No change to existing
>
> Example:
>
> Statement of responsibility relating to title proper: Madeleine Albright
> [and 57 others]
>
> Note on statement of responsibility: Additional creators: Franz-Lothar
> Altmann and Carl Bildt
>
>
>
> This also dovetails in with RDA 18.6, which instructs to add explanatory
> notes for relationships of creators, contributors, etc. to the resource.
>
> One other observation: the role of the relationship designator is
> connected to the relationship between specific entities like Creator <>
> Work. Many "explanatory" or "justification" statements or notes are
> embedded in the Manifestation level. While those statements and notes do
> serve some user tasks (such as "identify"), the idea now is that
> bibliographic data about relationships could exist in different contexts,
> which means greater weight would be given to relationship designators for
> carrying the burden of explaining the relationship.
>
> Thomas Brenndorfer
> Guelph Public Library
>
>


-- 
Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D.
Cataloger -- CMC
Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office)
6725 Goshen Road
Edwardsville, IL 62025
618.656.3216x409
618.656.9401Fax

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Kathy Glennan]

In what sense does RDA suggest that SoRs are "recorded" and not "transcribed"? 
RDA 2.4.1.4 (Recording Statements of Responsibility) says, "Transcribe a 
statement of responsibility in the form in which it appears on the source of 
information. Apply the general guidelines on transcription given under 1.7."


Kathy Glennan
Head, Metadata Creation and Enhancement / Music Cataloger
University of Maryland
kglen...@umd.edu


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 11:50 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons 
etc.

If we were expected to transcribe the statement of responsibility, not just 
record it, the use of the mark of omission would make perfect sense.  Yet, the 
two Optional Omission instructions under 2.4.1.4 seem to suggest that mark of 
omission in S-o-Rs has been denigrated under RDA.

Specifically:

"Abridge a statement of responsibility only if it can be abridged without loss 
of essential information. Do not use a mark of omission (…) to indicate such an 
omission."

and the example:

Roger Colbourne [and six others]

not:

Roger Colbourne ... [and six others]

The first, seems to me, is just codifying (as an option) the AACR2 practice of 
not transcribing or marking the omission of words associated with names, so 
perhaps it's not relevant. But the second does represent a departure from AACR2 
practice (under AACR2 this would be Roger Colbourne ... [et al].)

But taking a step back, and trying to think about it from the user's 
perspective: does it matter to your typical user that they know where the 
omission occurs, or just that there has been an omission (in which case, if 
they need to see the whole s-o-r for some reason they will need to obtain the 
piece)? Honestly I don't know. :)

b

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 11:19 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons 
etc.

Ben Abrahamse wrote:

> * Though now, looking at RDA 2.4. again, I'm not 100% sure it's saying 
> to record.  The heading for instruction 2.4.1.4 is "Recording 
> statements of responsibility" but the first sentence in the 
> instruction is, "Transcribe a statement of responsibility".

In RDA, all of the data is "recorded".  It's just that for some of the 
elements, the method of recording is specifically transcription.

I wonder if it would be too weird to use the mark of omission, and have 
something like:

Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, ... Carl Bildt [and 52 others]

or:

Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, ... Carl Bildt [and 55 others]

I'm not really sure about this!  The first one totally ignores the number of 
names represented by the mark of omission.  The second one adds up all the 
names omitted before and after Carl Bildt.  Either way, I'm not sure I like the 
look of it.

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

If we were expected to transcribe the statement of responsibility, not just 
record it, the use of the mark of omission would make perfect sense.  Yet, the 
two Optional Omission instructions under 2.4.1.4 seem to suggest that mark of 
omission in S-o-Rs has been denigrated under RDA.

Specifically:

"Abridge a statement of responsibility only if it can be abridged without loss 
of essential information. Do not use a mark of omission (…) to indicate such an 
omission."

and the example:

Roger Colbourne [and six others]

not:

Roger Colbourne ... [and six others]

The first, seems to me, is just codifying (as an option) the AACR2 practice of 
not transcribing or marking the omission of words associated with names, so 
perhaps it's not relevant. But the second does represent a departure from AACR2 
practice (under AACR2 this would be Roger Colbourne ... [et al].)

But taking a step back, and trying to think about it from the user's 
perspective: does it matter to your typical user that they know where the 
omission occurs, or just that there has been an omission (in which case, if 
they need to see the whole s-o-r for some reason they will need to obtain the 
piece)? Honestly I don't know. :)

b

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 11:19 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons 
etc.

Ben Abrahamse wrote:

> * Though now, looking at RDA 2.4. again, I'm not 100% sure it's saying 
> to record.  The heading for instruction 2.4.1.4 is "Recording 
> statements of responsibility" but the first sentence in the 
> instruction is, "Transcribe a statement of responsibility".

In RDA, all of the data is "recorded".  It's just that for some of the 
elements, the method of recording is specifically transcription.

I wonder if it would be too weird to use the mark of omission, and have 
something like:

Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, ... Carl Bildt [and 52 others]

or:

Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, ... Carl Bildt [and 55 others]

I'm not really sure about this!  The first one totally ignores the number of 
names represented by the mark of omission.  The second one adds up all the 
names omitted before and after Carl Bildt.  Either way, I'm not sure I like the 
look of it.

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
> Sent: February-07-13 11:19 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three
> persons etc.
> 
> Ben Abrahamse wrote:
> 
> > * Though now, looking at RDA 2.4. again, I'm not 100% sure it's saying
> > to record.  The heading for instruction 2.4.1.4 is "Recording
> > statements of responsibility" but the first sentence in the
> > instruction is, "Transcribe a statement of responsibility".
> 
> In RDA, all of the data is "recorded".  It's just that for some of the 
> elements,
> the method of recording is specifically transcription.
> 
> I wonder if it would be too weird to use the mark of omission, and have
> something like:
> 
>   Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, ... Carl Bildt [and 52
> others]
> 
> or:
> 
>   Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, ... Carl Bildt [and 55
> others]
> 
> I'm not really sure about this!  The first one totally ignores the number of
> names represented by the mark of omission.  The second one adds up all the
> names omitted before and after Carl Bildt.  Either way, I'm not sure I like 
> the
> look of it.
> 
> Kevin M. Randall



One could choose the optional omission and supply the element Note on Statement 
of Responsibility (RDA 2.20.3) -- "... a note providing information on a 
person, family or corporate body not named in the statement of responsibility 
..."

So the statement of responsibility could have the first named only, and the 
note could list additional names-- whichever names are important for 
"identification or access" (RDA 2.20.3.5). No change to existing 

Example:

Statement of responsibility relating to title proper: Madeleine Albright [and 
57 others]

Note on statement of responsibility: Additional creators: Franz-Lothar Altmann 
and Carl Bildt



This also dovetails in with RDA 18.6, which instructs to add explanatory notes 
for relationships of creators, contributors, etc. to the resource.

One other observation: the role of the relationship designator is connected to 
the relationship between specific entities like Creator <> Work. Many 
"explanatory" or "justification" statements or notes are embedded in the 
Manifestation level. While those statements and notes do serve some user tasks 
(such as "identify"), the idea now is that bibliographic data about 
relationships could exist in different contexts, which means greater weight 
would be given to relationship designators for carrying the burden of 
explaining the relationship.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Kevin M Randall]

Ben Abrahamse wrote:

> * Though now, looking at RDA 2.4. again, I'm not 100% sure it's saying to
> record.  The heading for instruction 2.4.1.4 is "Recording statements of
> responsibility" but the first sentence in the instruction is, "Transcribe a
> statement of responsibility".

In RDA, all of the data is "recorded".  It's just that for some of the 
elements, the method of recording is specifically transcription.

I wonder if it would be too weird to use the mark of omission, and have 
something like:

Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, ... Carl Bildt [and 52 others]

or:

Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, ... Carl Bildt [and 55 others]

I'm not really sure about this!  The first one totally ignores the number of 
names represented by the mark of omission.  The second one adds up all the 
names omitted before and after Carl Bildt.  Either way, I'm not sure I like the 
look of it.

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

" do we feel it would be necessary to indicate that there are seven other names 
between Albright and Del Ponte, and another six between Del Ponte and Fischer?"

Since the RDA instruction is to "record" not "transcribe"* the s-o-r, I see no 
reason why we would need to add multiple "summariz[ations of] what has been 
omitted".  So I would think,

Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, Carl Bildt [and 55 others]

not,

Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, [3 others], Carl Bildt [and 52 others]

--Ben


* Though now, looking at RDA 2.4. again, I'm not 100% sure it's saying to 
record.  The heading for instruction 2.4.1.4 is "Recording statements of 
responsibility" but the first sentence in the instruction is, "Transcribe a 
statement of responsibility".

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 9:59 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons 
etc.


An example according to the lines I suggested yesterday could be added, e.g.:

[contributions by] Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, Carl Bildt [and 55 
others]
Source of information lists 58 names in alphabetical order, starting with 
Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann and Carl Bildt

The tricky thing is what to do if for some reason someone wanted to transcribe 
not simply the first three, five or ten names, but perhaps especially the ninth 
and the 16th name in the list (in my example, Carla Del Ponte and Joschka 
Fischer). Should it then be possible to transcribe the statement in question 
like this (although the three names are not next to each other in the source of 
information):

[contributions by] Madeleine Albright, Carla Del Ponte, Joschka Fischer [and 55 
others]

Or do we feel it would be necessary to indicate that there are seven other 
names between Albright and Del Ponte, and another six between Del Ponte and 
Fischer? This might get awkward...

Heidrun

--

-

Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.

Stuttgart Media University

Faculty of Information and Communication

Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany

www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] anomaly in LC RDA training module?

[McRae, Rick]

Ah,  the fine print below. Thanks for the clarification, David!
Rick

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of David Moody
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 10:37 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] anomaly in LC RDA training module?

My reading is that there is an option to use "500 and/or 775" instead of the 
using the "preferred title" in 240, and that the option was taken.

- Original Message -
From: "McRae, Rick"
Date: Thursday, February 7, 2013 10:20 am
Subject: [RDA-L] anomaly in LC RDA training module?
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA

> Greetings-
> Either I have misunderstood a concept (not unlikely!) or there
> is an example for a rule in the LC Training Module which seems
> to contradict it. I direct you to:
> http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/RDA%20training%20materials/LC%20RDA%20Training/LC%20RDA%20course%20table.html
>
> Under FRBR, RDA, and MARC Slides-Slide 22:
> [cid:image005.jpg@01CE051C.8EDD8B30]
>
> Then comes the example on the next slide (this is embedded under
> a search-results image with both titles mentioned in 245 and 500
> fields in this record) :
>
> [cid:image006.jpg@01CE051C.8EDD8B30]
>
> This example, if I read it correctly, corresponds to "New title,
> revised content = new expression plus 240 for the original
> work's "preferred title," the 3rd of the maxims in Slide 22
> above. So where's the preferred title in 240? Personally, I
> would catalog this item as in the above example. But isn't this
> the archaic AACR2 method, stipulated against in that former slide?
>
> Any insights welcome.
> Thanks!
>
> Rick McRae
> Catalog / Reference Librarian
> Sibley Music Library
> Eastman School of Music
> (585) 274-1370
>
>
>

David Moody
Cataloging Librarian
University of Detroit Mercy
mood...@udmercy.edu
(313) 578-0402
Visit the University's re:search portal:
http://research.udmercy.edu

"A sheltered life can also be a daring one. For all serious daring begins from 
within." -- Eudora Welty, "One writer's beginning"

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Dykas, Felicity A.]

I think it is a mistake to strip out those relator codes.  Instead you can 
choose not to include $4 and $e in your indexing rules if you want to avoid a 
split file.  

And I'm all for using the relator codes to indicate the relationship and to 
skip the statement of responsibility.  The CONSER Standard Record implemented 
this idea -- if the access point was reflected in an authority record -- a 
while back.  Relator codes weren't required, but I think they should be in this 
case.

>From CONSER standard record documentation, 07/22/2010:  245 $c:  It is not 
>required to transcribe a statement of responsibility of any kind in field 245 
>$c.
Footnote:  For CONSER minimal level or non-CONSER records where no authority 
record will be created or updated for a heading named in a statement of 
responsibility, transcribe the statement of responsibility as usual in the 
bibliographic record so that usage can be documented. (Cf. LCRI 12.7B7.1)

I'd rather spend the time adding access points, summaries, etc.  I don't think 
the statement of responsibility supports the FRBR user tasks as much as other 
elements.

Felicity


Felicity Dykas
Head, Catalog Department
MU Libraries
University of Missouri--Columbia
(573) 882-4656
dyk...@missouri.edu


-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: Thursday, February 07, 2013 9:10 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons 
etc.

Mac wrote:

>> However, you can choose which entities to include in 7XX authorized 
>> access points in a MARC bibliographic record; those access points do 
>> not need to be justified in a transcribed element or by a note.
> This is my major argument with RDA.  If revising, please consider 
> restoring correlation between transcription and access points.
>
> If not justified, one is dependent on $4code or $eterm to know the 
> relationship of the traced person to the manifestation being 
> described.  Many libraries are planning to strip off $4 and/or $e to 
> avoid split files.

I also think that whenever there is an access point for a person or corporate 
body, the corresponding statement of responsibility should also be recorded. 
Actually, we plan to recommend this in the German policy statements.

Heidrun

--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, 
Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] anomaly in LC RDA training module?

[David Moody]

My reading is that there is an option to use "500 and/or 775" instead of the 
using the "preferred title" in 240, and that the option was taken.

- Original Message -
From: "McRae, Rick" 
Date: Thursday, February 7, 2013 10:20 am
Subject: [RDA-L] anomaly in LC RDA training module?
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA

> Greetings-
> Either I have misunderstood a concept (not unlikely!) or there 
> is an example for a rule in the LC Training Module which seems 
> to contradict it. I direct you to:
> http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/RDA%20training%20materials/LC%20RDA%20Training/LC%20RDA%20course%20table.html
> 
> Under FRBR, RDA, and MARC Slides-Slide 22:
> [cid:image005.jpg@01CE051C.8EDD8B30]
> 
> Then comes the example on the next slide (this is embedded under 
> a search-results image with both titles mentioned in 245 and 500 
> fields in this record) :
> 
> [cid:image006.jpg@01CE051C.8EDD8B30]
> 
> This example, if I read it correctly, corresponds to "New title, 
> revised content = new expression plus 240 for the original 
> work's "preferred title," the 3rd of the maxims in Slide 22 
> above. So where's the preferred title in 240? Personally, I 
> would catalog this item as in the above example. But isn't this 
> the archaic AACR2 method, stipulated against in that former slide?
> 
> Any insights welcome.
> Thanks!
> 
> Rick McRae
> Catalog / Reference Librarian
> Sibley Music Library
> Eastman School of Music
> (585) 274-1370
> 
> 
> 

David Moody 
Cataloging Librarian 
University of Detroit Mercy 
mood...@udmercy.edu 
(313) 578-0402 
Visit the University's re:search portal: 
http://research.udmercy.edu 

"A sheltered life can also be a daring one. For all serious daring begins from 
within." -- Eudora Welty, "One writer's beginning" 

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Mac wrote:


However, you can choose which entities to include in 7XX authorized access
points in a MARC bibliographic record; those access points do not need to
be justified in a transcribed element or by a note.

This is my major argument with RDA.  If revising, please consider
restoring correlation between transcription and access points.

If not justified, one is dependent on $4code or $eterm to know the
relationship of the traced person to the manifestation being
described.  Many libraries are planning to strip off $4 and/or $e to
avoid split files.


I also think that whenever there is an access point for a person or 
corporate body, the corresponding statement of responsibility should 
also be recorded. Actually, we plan to recommend this in the German 
policy statements.


Heidrun

--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Rita Lifton]

Referring to the statement that "many libraries are planning to strip off $4 
and/or $e ...", are you saying that the subfields would be entered in 
cataloging and then suppressed? Just wanted to understand.

Thanks,
Rita Lifton
Library of The Jewish Theological Seminary
New York, NY

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 2:30 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons 
etc.

>However, you can choose which entities to include in 7XX authorized 
>access points in a MARC bibliographic record; those access points do 
>not need to be justified in a transcribed element or by a note.

This is my major argument with RDA.  If revising, please consider restoring 
correlation between transcription and access points.

If not justified, one is dependent on $4code or $eterm to know the relationship 
of the traced person to the manifestation being described.  Many libraries are 
planning to strip off $4 and/or $e to avoid split files.

I would prefer that the option to omit persons has one transcribe at least 
three, not one, for each function.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Barbara Tillett wrote:

You are right the rules do not specifically say you can do it, but it 
is definitely in the spirit of RDA and perhaps you'd like to work with 
Christine Frodl to propose an adjustment to the way RDA states this? - 
Barbara


I'll certainly discuss this with Christine Frodl and the other members 
of the German RDA implementation group, and see whether we can submit a 
proposal. Personally, I'd be very willing to help make RDA conform to 
its spirit ;-)


At first glance, perhaps what's needed is really only a slight change in 
wording. Benjamin has already suggested "omit any but the first of each 
group of such persons, families, or bodies" instead of "omit all but". 
Another way might be: "always record the first name of each group of 
such persons, families, or bodies. Other names may be omitted."


An example according to the lines I suggested yesterday could be added, 
e.g.:


[contributions by] Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, Carl Bildt 
[and 55 others]
Source of information lists 58 names in alphabetical order, starting 
with Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann and Carl Bildt


The tricky thing is what to do if for some reason someone wanted to 
transcribe not simply the first three, five or ten names, but perhaps 
especially the ninth and the 16th name in the list (in my example, Carla 
Del Ponte and Joschka Fischer). Should it then be possible to transcribe 
the statement in question like this (although the three names are not 
next to each other in the source of information):


[contributions by] Madeleine Albright, Carla Del Ponte, Joschka Fischer 
[and 55 others]


Or do we feel it would be necessary to indicate that there are seven 
other names between Albright and Del Ponte, and another six between Del 
Ponte and Fischer? This might get awkward...


Heidrun

--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi