[DCRM-L] item-specific notes: RDA 2.21 and 3.22

[Deborah J. Leslie]

I'm bothered about the "Note on statement of responsibility," defined in RDA this way:  A note providing information on a person, family, or corporate body not named in a statement of responsibility to whom responsibility for the intellectual or artistic content of the resource has been attributed, on variant forms of names appearing in the resource, on changes in statements of responsibility, or on other details relating to a statement of responsibility.

In fact, attributing responsibility for intellectual or artistic content when there is no statement of responsibility is an aspect of work/expression identification, not of manifestation. Right?

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 Elizabeth O'Keefe
Sent: Thursday, 14 May 2015 08:30
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] item-specific notes: RDA 2.21 and 3.22

I think it's a very good idea to specify when "signed" means handwritten, as opposed to printed.

As I thought about the examples, I wondered whether it would be necessary to create two notes when evidence relevant to the manifestation appears only in the item. Two examples:

a handwritten inscription on a printed book that provides evidence of authorship (for example, a handwritten note on the flyleaf of a book with no statement or responsibility, that says something like, "written by my father-in-law, John L. Sullivan, but published anonymously"). Assuming this statement was verifiable, it would justify assigning authorial responsibility to John L. Sullivan. The justification for doing this would be recorded as a Note on Statement of Responsibility (2.17.3), which would include a citation to the item that was the source of the information. Would you also enter this information as an item-specific note, or is the manifestation-level note sufficient?

a signature on an undated or incorrectly dated autograph letter that provides evidence on when the letter was written (in the case of someone signing a letter with a married name, when she is known to have died in the first year of her marriage; or with a hereditary title or title of office that changes over time, and therefore provides a clue to the dating of the letter). Would this note be a Note on Production Statement (2.17.6) and also an item-specific note, or just the former?
I tried to make these examples as simple as possible, but reading them over, I realize that the second example could also be considered a Note on Statement of Responsibility (signatures are not treated as statements of responsibility, but notes on resources without statements of responsibility are covered under this instruction), while the first example, with very little tweaking, could also justify a Note on Custodial History (2.18). This doesn't mean that it's not a good idea to make notes more element specific, but as several contributors have noted, it's sometimes tough to separate the information out neatly. Maybe a one to many relationship between notes that refer to several elements would be the answer.

Liz O'Keefe

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150514/fba0f000/attachment.html>