Proposal: Expanding the scope of Statement of Responsibility in RDA 2.4 and eliminating the instructions for Performers, Narrators, Presenters (RDA 7.23), and Artistic and/or Technical Credits (RDA 7.24)

Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Proposal: Expanding the scope of Statement of Responsibility in RDA 2.4 and eliminating the instructions for Performers, Narrators, Presenters (RDA 7.23), and Artistic and/or Technical Credits (RDA 7.24)

  1. Tracey L. Snyder says:

    What I emailed Kathy:

    DNB: I’m not sure I see a problem with 2.4.1.4 and/or 2.4.2.2. I think they want an example of a recording that presents the performer information differently on two sources such as the disc label vs. the container. 2.4.2.2 gives an order of preference, so I think if you’re exercising the option to use the SOR (as opposed to a note), you just follow that list of sources, taking advantage if you need to of the leeway inherent in its inclusion of “another source within the resource” without any explicit guidance on when you may or may not move to a source lower down on the list than “same source as title proper.” And if you don’t like the way the performer information is given on any or all of the sources, you can instead go with a note. That seems like too circular a situation to neatly convey in an example. Just my opinion. But if the JSC likes the idea to devise an example that accounts for this situation and can come up with a clear and helpful one, I don’t object.

  2. Tracey L. Snyder says:

    CCC: I’m fine with the corrections/suggestions for the examples.
    Their rewording of 2.4.1.6 Alternative and 2.17.3.5 is good, although, where they use “which” instead of “who,” I might instead use “that” (IF the JSC goes with CCC’s approach).

  3. Tracey L. Snyder says:

    LC Change 2: In 2.4.2.3, I hope we can keep both the Brahms and Beethoven examples, since, taken together, they highlight the idea that you transcribe an instrument name if it is given, or supply one if it is not given.

    LC Change 3: OK

    LC Change 4: OK

  4. Tracey L. Snyder says:

    LC Change 1:

    We really went around and around about 2.4.2.3 vs. 2.4.1.[4 or 6]. Back in May, I wondered why this appears in 2.4.2.3 instead of somewhere in 2.4.1:

    “If not all statements of responsibility appearing on the source or sources of information are being recorded, give preference to those identifying creators of the intellectual or artistic content. In case of doubt, record the first statement.”

    It doesn’t sound like it’s specific to titles proper, so should its placement be rethought? I bring it up because LC actually uses this paragraph as part of its reasoning for adding the new paragraph: “…we believe the concept is already present at the end of 2.4.2.3…”

    But if I’m right to question the placement of that existing paragraph in 2.4.2.3 to begin with, then that casts some doubt on LC’s wanting to put the new paragraph in 2.4.2.3.

    Kathy and I think that this existing paragraph in 2.4.2.3 would fit well in 2.4.1.4. I think it should go before the Optional Omission & Exception. Or perhaps even right before that first big example block.

    If we can move that, then I’m still thinking that our proposed 2.4.1.6 Alternative works. I don’t really agree with LC about the idea of it putting catalogers in conflict with the core requirements, because the premise of this instruction is that there are more than one SORs that the cataloger intends to do something with, and the requirement to supply the first one has already been fulfilled.

Leave a Reply