Proposal: Revision of RDA: Basic Instructions on Recording Statements of Responsibility (RDA 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.17.3, 7.23, 7.24)

Tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Proposal: Revision of RDA: Basic Instructions on Recording Statements of Responsibility (RDA 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.17.3, 7.23, 7.24)

  1. Francis Lapka says:

    The inconsistent treatment of SOR for this class of material may not be a problem in need of solving. The authors present logical reasons for why the tradition of transcribing SORs from the resource is not as well-suited to audio-visual resources. I think these reasons justify the inconsistent treatment. That is, recording this information as non-transcribed attributes (of the Expression) may best enable the user to find and identify the resource.

    If we acknowledge that it is more useful (with audiovisual resources) to record this information rather than transcribe the SOR, I think it makes much more sense to keep using the elements we already have (7.23 and 7.24). Recording such information in 2.17.3 Note on Statement of Responsibility would be a step backwards in the way that it associates the data with the incorrect Group 1 entity. I would, in fact, recommend the opposite: We should investigate moving most (or all?) of the guidelines in 2.17.3 to a new home in Chapter 7 (or to 18.6 Note on Persons, Families, and Corporate Bodies Associated with a Resource ?).

    Ideally, of course, the contributions of performers etc. (those in 7.23-7.24) would be recorded as relationships to related entities (with relationship designators). If the data is recorded in this fashion, the attributes in 7.23 and 7.24 aren’t really necessary. But I assume this option isn’t always feasible (because of the extra work required)—which is why it’s useful to have 7.23 and 7.24 as a fallback.

    — Francis Lapka, RBMS Liaison

    • kelleym says:

      I share your concerns about chapter 2. However, in addition to the problem Kathy describes, another challenge with the ch 7 elements is that an additional one would be needed for “technical and artistic credits” related to the work. 7.24 is in the part of ch 7 related to expressions, but the examples include both roles that RDA relates to the work and ones that it relates to the expression. This was actually the initial problem that started this. Some things that RDA relates to the work (dir of photography) have in the US traditionally been given in a note. Other people put writers there. However, it is not very clear what to name this element or how to define it.

  2. Kathy Glennan says:

    Part of the problem that this proposal is trying to address is the inability to map RDA 7.23 and 7.24 to ISBD.

    ISBD Consolidated (2011) lists the following entities as statement of responsibility examples under 1.4.2 (only 2 of four bullets provided here):
    • writers, composers, performers, graphic artists, choreographers, arrangers, cartographers, programmers, principal investigators, animators, etc., whose work is embodied in the resource, whether directly (e.g. author of text, editor, compiler, translator, illustrator, engraver, cartographer, composer, arranger, choreographer), or indirectly (e.g. author of the novel on which a film script is based, author of the work on which the software is based, adapters of an already existing work), whether in the same medium as the original or in another
    • production companies and individuals such as producers, directors, or others having some degree of overall responsibility for a work; individuals who have specific responsibilities when in the context of a particular film, or particular type of film, they have a major creative role (e.g. cinematographers, writers of screenplays or animators of animated films)

Leave a Reply