Print

Print


On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 4:17 AM, Nicholson, Neil <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> It is up to you to decide how many authors you wish to mention in the
> statement of responsibility

[...]

Oops, this is not true.  See the Optional Omission under 2.4.1.5, which
states that you may omit names from a statement of responsibility *only*
when there are *more than three* performing the same function.  (So some
form of the "rule of three" survives after all!)  In any case you always
must record at least the first name.

And as Adam pointed out, this first name is not necessarily the one you
would use in the 100 field (though often it is).  6.27.1 is where to look
to make this determination; how the statement of responsibility appears may
or may not have any bearing on this, and how you choose to record it has
none.

Hope this helps,
Trina

Trina Pundurs
Serials Cataloger
Catalog & Metadata Services
University of California, Berkeley
[log in to unmask]
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/

-----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Annette Ingram
> Sent: 27 August 2014 12:01
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [PCCLIST] "Main access point" for more than three authors
>
> Dear colleagues
>
> Another question from the tip of Africa please! I know that the AACR2
> "Rule of 3" does not apply any more, but I have a problem with choosing the
> "main access point" (which we use to build our shelf number) when there are
> three or more authors. We decided to use [and others]when there are more
> than three authors (should we use it for three also??) and wonder if the
> person mentioned before the [and others] is a 100 or a 700 access point. In
> AACR2 it would have been a 700, but in RDA? Editors are no problem because
> they are 700s, right?
>
> Thanks for your help and opinions.
> Kind regards.
> Annette Ingram (Cataloguer and trainer, Merensky Library, University of
> Pretoria, Pretoria
>