[DCRM-L] Revision to RDA 2.4.1.8 (Noun Phrase Occurring with a Statement of Responsibility)

[Matthew Haugen]

Hi Deborah,

That's correct. For this proposal, I've already provided a response based on the comments posted to DCRM-L prior to the CC:DA's discussion and vote. There is a log of DCRM/BSC comments/responses and current status on the DCRM-RDA wiki: 

http://dcrmrda.pbworks.com/w/page/82990804/CCDA%20and%20JSC%3A%20selected%20working%20docs

Over the past few weeks, CC:DA has been finalizing their discussion and voting to to authorize the ALA Representative to the JSC to provide ALA responses based on the discussion on CC:DA's website. A few proposals remain to be finalized and voted on in the next two weeks. 

Perhaps most importantly for DCRM, the Proposal to revise RDA 2.7-2.10 (Production, Publication, Distribution, and Manufacture Statements) remains to be voted on. Comments are still welcome on our draft response here (deadline extended until Monday, Sept. 8):

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bnIvjpPKtvXvpEEErjCZp1f85T1flROZqcidzm3Amq0/edit

As a liaison, I don't get to vote, but I'm encouraged to review and comment on any of the proposals, not just those with rare materials implications. I'm not documenting that activity in the DCRM wiki, but anyone is welcome to send comments to me on those proposals as well. The CC:DA website and comments can be viewed by anyone. http://alcts.ala.org/ccdablog/?cat=33

I'm still getting the hang of this position, so I also welcome feedback about this approach to proposal review.

Best,

Matthew

On Sep 5, 2014, at 6:14 PM, Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu> wrote:

> Colleagues,
>  
> Am finally catching up with discussions that have been occurring. I, too, agree with Francis and Richard. What is the outcome—does Matthew take this back to CC:DA to incorporate this community's opinions in ALA's response?
>  
> Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu | 202.675-0369 | 201 East Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 | www. folger.edu
>  
> From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Lapka, Francis
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 August 2014 14:48
> To: DCRM Users' Group
> Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Revision to RDA 2.4.1.8 (Noun Phrase Occurring with a Statement of Responsibility)
>  
> I agree with Richard. The current RDA guideline needs a revision, but this proposal places too much emphasis on sequence, layout, and typography. The character of the noun phrase has to be the primary (and sometimes only) indication of where it belongs.
>  
> The proposal is less coherent than its parallels in AACR2 and DCRM(B). The proposed wording of the if-and statement also implies that the noun phrase must always be recorded with Other Title Information if the sequence, layout, and typography suggest no preference—no matter how strong the indication of character in the noun phrase. I doubt this is the outcome the authors intend.
>  
> Francis
>  
>  
>  
> From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 9:29 AM
> To: DCRM Revision Group List
> Subject: [DCRM-L] Revision to RDA 2.4.1.8 (Noun Phrase Occurring with a Statement of Responsibility)
>  
> I don't see any improvement in the proposed revision, as well as further drawbacks, and find the AACR instructions generally more coherent. The question isn't a matter of typography, but has to do with whether the information is useful in a display which includes both the title proper and other title information, but not the statement of responsibility.
>  
> If the noun phrase characterizes the work or expression as a whole, then it ought to be associated with the title proper as, well, other title information. If the noun phrase has to do with the nature of the responsibility of the person or persons named, then it's part of the statement of responsibility. There willalways be grey areas, but with such guidelines in mind there will be a tendency to coherent if not always invariable results in the work of cataloguers.
>  
> The revision to regard typographical layout--which may have much more to do with visual design than with intellectual content--does result in intellectual incoherence. If the same words are differently disposed in another manifestation, then the 245s won't match.
>  
> RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
> BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
> <Richard_Noble at Brown.edu>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20140905/89ace70d/attachment.html>