I wonder if this is one of those cases where RDA has been written so as to
accept a record potentially created by a machine.
A machine could OCR/transcribe all 30 of those collaborators and all
descriptive phrases associated with them. In fact, it would be hard to get
the machine to decide what to leave out.
Whereas a record created manually by a person could show more judgement.
I think RDA is trying to allow rationality and efficiency, it's just that
what's rational and efficient looks different whether it is a machine or a
human doing the work.
************
Diana Brooking (206) 685-0389
Cataloging Librarian (206) 685-8782 fax
Suzzallo Library [log in to unmask]
University of Washington
Box 352900
Seattle WA 98195-2900
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012, john g marr wrote:
> 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.
>
|