[DCRM-L] DPC: Omission of names in statements of responsibility (DCRM 1E5)

[Erin Blake]

Now that the holidays and ALA Midwinter are behind us, discussions of
proposed changes ("DPCs") to DCRM language are back in season.  Many
thanks to those of you who were able to attend the DCRM(G) public
hearing in San Diego last weekend. And for those who weren't, the 20 or
30 people at the hearing thought there were a couple of changes worth
considering.  The first one has to do with the prescribed use of "et
al." when exercising the option to omit all names after the third in a
lengthy statement of responsibility.

As discussed at the hearing, in 1E5 it would be useful to state the
number of names omitted when exercising the option to omit all names
after the third, but the instruction says to use the AACR2-mandated "et
al." instead. Note that stating the number of names omitted IS done when
optionally omitting names of publishers after the third, in 4C6.2, e.g.
"Printed for F.C. and J. Rivington, Otridge and Son, J. Nichols and Co.
... [and 26 others]." Also note that the instruction in 1E5 already
differs from AACR2, where "et al." is added after the first name, not
the third.

Below is the proposed change in html, with old text crossed out and new
text underlined. The new text comes from the existing wording of DCRM
4C6.2. The example comes from the DCRM(G) draft.

Optionally, if the responsible persons or bodies named in a single
statement are considered too numerous to list exhaustively, all after
the third may be omitted. Indicate the omission by the mark of omission
and supply "et al." in square brackets a phrase in the language and
script of the cataloging agency to convey the extent of the omission.

/ idee e motti di Giannino Antona-Traversi ; disegni di G. Ardy, A.
Bonzagni, A. Cagnoni ... [and 7 others] ; sculture di V. Franco


Below is the original text followed by the proposed change for anyone
with plain-text e-mail who can't see the crossed out "et al." and
underlined "a phrase in...." above: 

ORIGINAL: Optionally, if the responsible persons or bodies named in a
single statement are considered too numerous to list exhaustively, all
after the third may be omitted. Indicate the omission by the mark of
omission and supply "et al." in square brackets.

PROPOSED CHANGE: Optionally, if the responsible persons or bodies named
in a single statement are considered too numerous to list exhaustively,
all after the third may be omitted. Indicate the omission by the mark of
omission and supply in square brackets a phrase in the language and
script of the cataloging agency to convey the extent of the omission.

 

Personally, I also think the mark of omission is incorrect (or at least
redundant) in these cases because both "[et al.]" and "[and  7 others]"
convey the ENTIRE omission. Including "..." implies that even more
information has been omitted. I think RDA has improved on AACR2 by
changing the optional omission instruction to "Indicate the omission by
summarizing what has been omitted in the language and script preferred
by the agency preparing the description" with the example "Roger
Colbourne [and six others]" -- that is, no mark of omission in addition
to the bracketed statement. 

 

Unless continued discussion indicates additional time is needed, members
of the Bibliographic Standards Committee will be asked to vote on the
issue on Monday, January 24.

 

What do you think?

 

Thanks,

 

    EB.

 

--------------------------------------------------

Erin C. Blake, Ph.D.  |  Curator of Art & Special Collections  |  Folger
Shakespeare Library  |  201 E. Capitol St. SE  | Washington, DC
20003-1004  |  office tel. (202) 675-0323  |  fax:  (202) 675-0328  |
eblake at folger.edu  |  www.folger.edu

 

________________________________

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20110116/895ec95c/attachment.htm