The term "statement of responsibility" has a broad enough formal 
definition in old AACR2 to include phrases that describe responsible 
persons (e.g. "Chief Fuddy-duddy at LC") but 1.1F7 reduces that 
possibility to reasonable levels. Does something in RDA explicitly 
contradict old 1.1F7, and if it does, was it intentionally meant to do so? 
Wouldn't that be another good example of pushing the envelope of 
rationality and efficiency? What if you had descriptive phrases that 
applied to each of 30 collaborative responsible persons?

Cheers!

  jgm

  John G. Marr
  Cataloger
  CDS, UL
  Univ. of New Mexico
  Albuquerque, NM 87131
  [log in to unmask]
  [log in to unmask]


     **There are only 2 kinds of thinking: "out of the box" and "outside
the box."

Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.