Thomas said:
>Kits come up as an example again in 2.1.2.3, since kits would tend to
>be characterized as multipart resources not single unit resources.
You've put your finger on why we had such difficulty doing an
intelligible record for a kit using RDA. A kit is a single item,
often the only manifestation of the only expression of the work it
represents. Perhaps we need "kit" added as a carrier term (although
it would not fit under any of the carrier categories - possibly having
parts from any of them), and "mixed" as a content term. A kit needs
to be treated as a single whole (which is why I wanted "container"
added at 2.1.2.2 and not only at 2.2.2).
AACR2 works better for kits, but not for a growing category: kits for
assembly. While Tinkertoy and Leggo can be called [toy], that does
not work for a kit designed to teach physics students the structure of
an atom, a molecule, or the solar system. Since there is only one
"material" - usually wood or plastic pieces - cataloguers have been
calling them [realia]. While many are used to create a [model]. as
issued and circulated they are not yet models. (Seems to me [realia]
would be the actual solar system, molecule or atom :-{)}.)
Library resources are becoming increasingly varied, and neither AACR2
nor RDA are up to the task, RDA even less so that AACR2.
>I would think the "Mode of issuance" element in 2.13.1.3 would be
>"multipart monograph" for a kit ...
But it is in one box, as are boxed sets of DVDs and CDs. It's not like
a multivolume set of books. People accuse us of thinking in terms of
the catalogue card. Seems to me tend to think more in terms of printed
books.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
