Clarify Sources of Information Instruction for Statement of Responsibility Relating to Title Proper (RDA 2.4.2.2)

Tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Clarify Sources of Information Instruction for Statement of Responsibility Relating to Title Proper (RDA 2.4.2.2)

  1. Robert L. Maxwell says:

    I’m not sure this fully clarifies the instruction. But first, what are we trying to allow the cataloger to do? In my opinion the cataloger should be able to transcribe the fuller form as part of the statement of responsibility even if (e.g.) just the surname appears on the same source as the title proper if a fuller form appears in a statement of responsibility in another source within the resource (Kathy’s “interpretation 1”). The rewording appears to zero in on interpretation 4, requiring the cataloger to “Transcribe what’s on the title page and provide any additional information about statements of responsibility in a note, if desired”. Is that the desired outcome?

    Bob

  2. Tina Shrader says:

    I thought the gist of the conversation at Midwinter was that most people favored interpretation #2, that you transcribe what’s on the title page no matter what, but that you can add other statements of responsibility that appear elsewhere in the resource.

    I favor interpretation #2, and I think the revision does that, though it requires careful reading.

  3. Robert Bratton says:

    Unfortunately, I don’t think the proposed revision clarifies especially without an example. Would adding an example derail the fast track train?

    Example:

    C-Hundred Film Corp and Bluemark Productions present ; directed by Chris Smith ; producers, Sarah Price, Chris Smith ; co-producers, Jim McKay, Michael Stipe.

    Resource described: American movie / C-Hundred Film Corp and Bluemark Productions present ; directed by Chris Smith ; producers, Sarah Price, Chris Smith ; co-producers, Jim McKay, Michael Stipe. On the sources of information: production companies, director, and producers from the on screen credits; co-producers from the container.

  4. Larisa Walsh says:

    I agree with Robert Maxwell that suggested additions to the instruction do not really clarify the situation. I think an additional explanatory text, with examples as Robert Bratton suggested, might help. “When fuller or additional statements of responsibility appear elsewhere on the resource, a single source should be used for each separate statement”, or something like this?
    Would these additions still qualify for the fast track?

  5. Tracey L. Snyder says:

    I also have in my Midwinter notes that we are aiming for Interpretation #2. That was also the consensus within the music community.

    I like the idea of leaving the wording of 2.4.2.2 as it is and just adding a final sentence after the list of sources, like “Use this order of preference even when a resource contains multiple statements of responsibility identifying the same person, family, or corporate body.”

    If an example is desired, here is the one that started it all in the music community:
    The title page says:

    [top] JANÁČEK

    3 MORAVIAN DANCES

    (Munclinger)

    [bottom] New York – International Music Co.

    Caption includes: Arranged by Milan Munclinger

    The desired result is that the SOR recorded for the arranger is simply “Munclinger” from the title page (or, invoking 2.4.1.7, “[arranged by] Munclinger”), and not “arranged by Milan Munclinger” from the caption.

    Can we also change the wording in 2.4.2.1 from “associated with the title proper” to “relating to the title proper?”

  6. Kathy Glennan says:

    It looks like there’s enough discussion and further suggestions for refinement that this will not be eligible for fast track, especially since we’re really pushing the deadline.

    That’s fine. Please continue to comment and make suggestions, and we can try to wrap this one up in person at the CC:DA meeting in San Francisco.

  7. Adolfo Tarango says:

    My recollection is also that we were aiming for interpretation 2. I’m supportive of Tracey’s approach above as being a good simple and clear response. Don’t believe we need to change the wording in 2.4.2.1, but don’t object to the proposed rewording.

  8. Dominique Bourassa says:

    I also thought that we were aiming for option 2. I don’t object to Kathy’s rewording. To me, it seems clear but I guess not everyone sees it this way. I don’t mind Tracy’s proposal either if the majority thinks it makes the instruction clearer.

  9. Chair says:

    Would our intent be any clearer if the suggested rewording was as follows?

    Take each statement of responsibility relating to title proper from one of the following sources (in order of preference):

    • Elizabeth O'Keefe says:

      “each statement of responsibility” is clearer than “separate statements of responsibility”
      I like the final sentence suggested by Tracey (“Use this order of preference even when…” ). I think that conveys the idea that you don’t prefer fuller name forms appearing elsewhere in the resource

      • Tina Shrader says:

        I agree with Elizabeth.
        To be explicit, we’d have something like this:

        “Take each statement of responsibility relating to title proper from one of the following sources (in order of preference):
        (list of sources)
        Use this order of preference even when a resource contains multiple statements of responsibility identifying the same person, family, or corporate body.”

Leave a Reply