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

[Manon Theroux]

I heartily support the proposed change!

Two questions:

1) DCRM(B) 4C6.2 has "supply after it in square brackets" rather than
"supply in square brackets" (with the "it" meaning the mark of
omission). Should 1E5 read the same? I think so.

2) Should we add 1E5 to the list of examples of exceptional rules in
0F1.2? (these are rules in areas 1,2,4, and 6 for which we do not
prefer the language and script of the other information in the area).
I'd like to.

Manon

--
Manon Théroux
Head of Technical Services
U.S. Senate Library
SR-B15 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-3833


On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Erin Blake <EBlake at folger.edu> wrote:
> 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
_______________________________