In Cambridge, we're discussing this right now and our preference is to
follow the LC-PCC PS and BL practice of saying we generally don't abridge a
statemetn of responsibility and we also give them all access points. What
we haven't quite settled is the issue of downloaded records which may have
abridged and to what extent we want to go in and add to transcription and
access points in these cases.
As a NACO contributor, this would not only mean a lot of editing of
downloaded records but also, potentially, a huge amount of extra authority
work. However we do all feel that providing these access points and full
transcription would be a real benefit in RDA over current practice using
Rule of 3.
All that to say, "we're not sure yet"!
On Oct 25 2012, Helen Williams wrote:
> But that's a helpful distinction to draw out between AACR2 and RDA -
> thanks Wendy! And I'm interested that some have chosen to list all the
> names while others have chosen to use [and 5 others]. Has anyone thought
> very much about local policy on this point? Helen
> -----Original Message----- From: CIG E-Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wendy Taylor Sent: 25
> October 2012 10:31 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: [CIG-E-FORUM]
> Record 6 - schoolboy error
>Bother - I put [et al] by mistake out of habit!
> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
> communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
Cambridge University Library
Cambridge CB3 9DR