Problem: Multiple sources for Statements of Responsibility (RDA 2.4)

Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Problem: Multiple sources for Statements of Responsibility (RDA 2.4)

  1. Tracey L. Snyder says:

    1. Which interpretation should be followed?
    I guess interpretation number one can be seen as technically incorrect, while interpretation number two can be seen as the technically correct one. I don’t see it as necessary to resort to either interpretation number three or interpretation number four. Even though I initially favored interpretation number one on the basis that RDA already does allow you to transcribe SORs from anywhere in the resource if they are not present on the title page/disc label, I have come around to preferring interpretation number two. I think it’s one thing to supplement the information that is transcribed from the title page/disc label with additional information found elsewhere in the resource and NOT on the title page/disc label, but when you start taking whatever you want from wherever you want IN PLACE OF information that is indeed present on the title page/disc label (just presented differently), it opens us up to more confusion when we’re looking at records and comparing them with what is in hand.

    2. Should RDA be clarified to support that interpretation? If so, how?
    Yes. How–TBD.

    • Tracey L. Snyder says:

      1. General support for interpretation #2 (the “correct” one) from MLA commenters. This is also supported by MLA’s Best Practices (RDA). Interpretation #4 also seems allowed in RDA currently. Some concerns about rare materials, where transcription from a single source is important, but RDA may not be the place to worry about that; it’s looking like DCRM(M) will be stricter.

      2. Some MLA commenters indicate that clarification can happen in a best practice or application profile rather than changing RDA. Personally, though, I feel the way I felt about the Cascading Vortex of Horror; there’s been enough confusion about it even among experienced catalogers that RDA itself could stand to be made clearer. Could tweak the wording at 2.4.2.2 somehow.

      • Tracey L. Snyder says:

        But Damian Iseminger, Chair of JSC Music Working Group, says:

        I don’t believe that RDA is the best place for this clarification if RDA is going to be of maximal flexibility. It depends on the types of material that you are cataloging and the purpose of that cataloging. I agree with Casey and Sonia that the best places for these are in application profiles. Using a “strict” interpretation may be fine for resources where information is presented in a formal manner (usually academic book titles) but what about “messier” resources? I usually object to providing a statement of responsibility when it is not present anywhere on the resource, but then I’m sure there is a compelling counter-argument for why you might want to do so. I don’t think RDA can take the variety of situations into account unless it wants to become burdened by specialist rules.

  2. Tracey L. Snyder says:

    3. What does it mean to have a statement of responsibility “associated with the title proper” (2.4.2.1) or “relating to the title proper” (2.4.2.2) if it can come from a different location in the resource?

    Some MLA commenters feel the phrase loses meaning and is confusing. One suggestion is to change it to “associated with the manifestation.”

  3. Tracey L. Snyder says:

    4. Are there other RDA elements related to the manifestation that have similar interpretive problems?

    My idea: perhaps enumeration (volume number) and part title, as evidenced by recent MOUG-L discussions. These involved CDs where the enumeration or the part title was present on the container with the title proper but not on the disc label. There was confusion about whether it was OK to use container as source instead of disc label in cases like this. Kathy will know what I’m talking about.

  4. Robert Bratton says:

    Let me see if I understand this correctly. In Interpretations 2, 3 when you say “additional statements of responsibility” you mean different *entities* correct? Example: the author’s name from the title page, the translators name from the preface; not differing versions of the author’s name from different places in the resource?

    If that’s the case, then I agree with Tracey that Interpretation #2 comes closest to what RDA intends. Common sense would say to add a note if you take any part of the SoR from a non-obvious source within the resource. For the sake of our fellow catalogers perhaps always add a note making this clear?

  5. Dominique Bourassa says:

    I was wondering the same thing as Robert, that is, if the phrase “additional statements of responsibility” in interpretations 2 and 3 means different *entities*” But Kathy’s background says, “A manifestation has only the creator’s last name on the preferred source of information but has fuller and/or additional statements of responsibility elsewhere in the resource.” And instruction 2 says “it would not allow for using a fuller form of a name if a shorter form appears on the preferred source.”

    My question is, what are we trying to take care of:

    Adding fuller form of statement of responsibility or additional statement relating to one *entity* (like clarifying role)
    Or
    Adding additional *entities* from more than one sources
    Or
    Both of the above?

    No matter which problem we are trying to solve, I do not like interpretation 3. I think interpretation 2 is the one I prefer. Even if the name is not complete, the authorized access points for the creator or person associated with the resource will be. In addition, a relationship designator can indicate the role.

  6. Larisa Walsh says:

    1. Which interpretation should be followed?
    I agree with Tracey and Robert that no. 2, probably, is the closest to what RDA prescribes. However confusion still persists about what sources of information were taken in description, and it doesn’t help with the identification of a resource.

    I don’t like the idea of a note with additional information on the sources. It’s not very efficient, especially in the current production environment.

    2. Should RDA be clarified to support this interpretation?
    RDA 2.4.2.2 already eliminates a distinction between sources of information a) and b). Yes, it prescribes the order of preference, but in real cataloging there are only two sources left – a resource itself, and sources outside the resource. So, the RDA 2.4.2.2 should reflect that.
    If SOR which appears in conjunction with the title proper still has great importance for identification of a manifestation, then mixing information from title page and from colophon, for example, is not true to RDA. Right now RDA still puts big emphasis on the concept “the same source as the title proper”. I don’t see how we can value information from “the same source as the title proper” so much and at the same time make equal what is on t.p., for example, and everywhere else in the resource. I don’t like the idea of going back to square brackets but somehow a distinction between sources of information should be made.

    3. What does it mean to have a statement of responsibility “associated with the title proper” (2.4.2.1) or “relating to the title proper” (2.4.2.2) if it can come from a different location in the resource?
    I think it means “appearing in conjunction with the title proper” or “appearing on the same source as the title proper”, but it’s confusing in current wording.

    4. Are there other RDA elements related to the manifestation that have similar interpretive problems?
    Publication statement, the same thing.

  7. Matthew Haugen says:

    1. Option 4 would be most in line with current rare materials instructions. The draft DCRM instruction corresponding to RDA 2.4.2.2 continues to restrict source of SORs to the preferred source of information (that is the same source as the title proper), with notes on SORs from other sources if considered important. However, I don’t think this is the intent of the RDA instruction, nor am I sure I would advocate for interpretation 4 for all types of resources. If SORs are to be taken from another source than that of the title proper, I suspect we would likely argue a rare materials reason to bracket it (as in interpretation 3) and whether or not brackets are used, we certainly would require notes to indicate where the information came from. We would similarly require a note even when a SOR on the *same* source was transposed from the head of the title (though that becomes more of an ISBD and/or MARC syntax issue).

    2. I do think the instruction would be clarified with the amendment “…from one of the following sources (in order of preference).”

    3. “Associated with the title proper” phrasing also generated confusion at the DCRM-RDA editorial meeting today. It seems to me (from 2.4.1.1) that this is meant to convey that since SORs can also be associated with the edition, revision, series, or subseries, in these instructions we’re talking only about SORs associated with the title, wherever that statement happens to be.

    4. In general, DCRM’s approach results in instructions that are more restrictive with respect to preferred sources of information and supplied elements, and/or more rigorous with respect to requiring notes when elements are supplied or taken from anywhere other than the preferred source of information. Edition statements and parallel titles proper come to mind. I am sure that sources of information for PPDM statements will generate similar departures for rare materials though we haven’t yet tackled them. We may have more comments on this at that point.

Leave a Reply