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/>