On 11/04/2013 19:52, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
How can you explain things when you don’t understand things?
There is no ‘rule of one’ in RDA that replaces a ‘rule of three.’ The rule of three applied to content within >>each statement<<. RDA’s core requirement for the first statement of responsibility applies to the entire statement >>regardless<< of how many names appear. RDA makes the entire first statement of responsibility a core element, which means one would tend to transcribe all the authors rather than be forced to truncate that statement. Did you tell your fellow scholars that their names might more likely be dropped in AACR2 records of their publications, and less likely in RDA displays of records of their publications? Or that cataloger’s judgment means that judgment can be applied to records where your fellow scholars have some involvement. Their names can be added as access points as a matter of local policy derived from cataloger’s judgment.
Once again, I don’t understand anything. Are you denying that if there is a book with two or three authors, only the first need be traced now? If I am wrong, please correct me. I don’t have access to the RDA Toolkit. But just try convincing a faculty member that doing this increases access. You also seem to be equating transcription of statements of responsibility with tracing headings, but in a catalog transcription is irrelevant to access. Transcription is for identification. If we conflate transcription with access, we might as well rely on simple full-text keyword searching.
To repeat what I have said many times, I have never had a problem with changing this rule, so long as it would say something like, “trace a minimum of the first three authors” or even the first four or five and leave any more to cataloger’s judgment. Then we could honestly say that we are increasing access. But when the rule says that we need trace only the first of a series of authors and the rest is “cataloger’s judgment” and we all know that simple human nature and the demands of an ever-growing backlog with a diminishing work force tends people to move things as quickly as possible, it is completely illogical to conclude that this will increase access. Of course it will go down. That is why standards exist in the first place. This is elementary.
Faculty will demolish such an argument very quickly and easily.