Print

Print


Benjamin A Abrahamse <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>  Our RDA study group came up with this question.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> RDA 2.4.1.4 states, "Transcribe a statement of responsibility in the form
> in which it appears on the source of information."  The option states:
> "Abridge a statement of responsibility only if it can be abridged without
> loss of essential information" and shows the example:
>
 ...

> But the LCPS says, "Generally do not abridge a statement of
> responsibility."
>
> ** **
>
> What is the significance of the word "generally"?  It implies that there
> are exceptions but none are named.****
>

The term "generally" pops up in RDA too (e.g., RDA B.5.11).  I approach it
as one of those cataloger's judgment terms: RDA has a preference or common
practice, but others are allowed.

The primary circumstance that comes to mind regarding the LCPS above is
allowing for abridgment when the statement of responsibility (SOR) just
goes on and on and on, notably when clarity becomes a problem for the
reader.  I've used the SOR in OCLC #680587137 (also here: <
http://lccn.loc.gov/2010046716>) to address this point, though this isn't
necessarily an egregious example of the potential outcome of pure
transcription.

I'm also aware that various specific cataloging communities may weigh RDA
2.4.1.4's general instruction and optional instruction differently.

Does this mean that under RDA/LCPS we will be expected to retain phrases
> that appear on the chief source of information, which pertain to the **author
> only** and not his or her responsibility (and hence, at least under
> AACR2, would be considered not essential)?
>

Responsibility to the content of the resource in hand?  Or responsibility
in another sense?  If the former, this would have to jibe with RDA 2.4.1.7
(Clarification of Role): is the role of the named individual(s) or group(s)
in the SOR clear if terms are stripped out as part of the transcription
process?  (I'm putting aside relationship designators attached to name
access points.)

Also I'll note that the draft BIBCO document doesn't get into abridgment of
the SOR:
<
http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/PCC%20RDA%20guidelines/Draft-RDA-BSR-TextualMonos.pdf
>


> Is this correct, and what LC and the PCC want to see?
>

I'm open to clarification too.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert                 Minitex
Coordinator                    University of Minnesota
Digitization, Cataloging &     15 Andersen Library
  Metadata Education (DCME)    222 21st Avenue South
Phone: 612-624-0805            Minneapolis, MN 55455-0439
<http://www.minitex.umn.edu/>