Report from the Task Force to Investigate Definitions of and Instructions for Accompanying Material in RDA

CC:DA/TF/Accompanying Material/2
June, 2 2016

Report from the Task Force to Investigate Definitions of and Instructions for Accompanying Material in RDA

Larger view of Appendix-1-Chart:

CC:DA/TF/Accompanying Material/2 June, 2 2016 Report from the Task Force to Investigate Definitions of and Instructions for Accompanying Material in RDA Submitted by: Elyssa Gould, Chair, Task Force to Investigate Definitions of and Instructions for Accompanying Material in RDA

CC:DA/TF/Accompanying Material/2
June, 2 2016
Report from the Task Force to Investigate Definitions of and Instructions for
Accompanying Material in RDA
Submitted by: Elyssa Gould, Chair, Task Force to Investigate Definitions of and Instructions for
Accompanying Material in RDA

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Report from the Task Force to Investigate Definitions of and Instructions for Accompanying Material in RDA

  1. Chair says:

    Comments from the CCC conference call on June 15th recorded by Chris Oliver, Chair, CCC

    • Note the recommendation from the CCC WG that the methodology worked well and sets a good model for future work as the North American constituency
    • Concur with the CCC WG in thanking Elyssa Gould, the chair of the CC:DA WG for her role in making the joint endeavour such a success


    Overall comments:

    • It is important to maintain clarity about when one is talking about content and when about carrier.
    • The problem with accompanying material in AACR2 was that it confused the two
    • In RDA, one has to maintain a strict alignment with the different entities
    • CCC recommends that the discussion paper focus on “accompanying carrier” – or else carefully separate accompanying content sections from accompanying carrier sections; the solution that works for carrier may not work for content and vice versa

    Issue 1

    • Agreement
    • Suggest adding to first bullet after “they describe the resource as a whole with one component treated as predominant and other components as the accompanying material” the following text “or with all components treated equally”.

    Issue 2

    • Definitely agree that the term “accompanying material” has outlived its usefulness
    • Would avoid “material” in any name
    • Would avoid “augmentations” as this seems more concerned with content relationships
    • Would agree with use of predominant and secondary — maybe predominant and secondary carriers
    • Consider using the terms predominant and subordinate (instead of secondary)
    • Agree that there is a need to evaluate the use of terms such as unit and part


    Issue 3

    • Agree that source of information instructions could be revised to remove the phrase “or on accompanying material or container”; already addressed in 2.2.2.1 (if it is felt that more clarity is needed at each instruction, add see ref to 2.2.2.1 instead)
    • Not convinced that “resource” needs to be re-defined (since it already refers to aggregates and components of each entity); but do think that one needs to evaluate the use of the “resource” to make sure it is used consistently throughout RDA; evaluate use of “resource” versus “resource itself”
    • Evaluate the instructions for preferred sources of information in light of the fact that accompanying materials and containers are “part of the resource” when issued together, yet instructions refer to labels “affixed to the resource” when they really mean affixed to (for example) a disc surface, rather than the container of a disc.
    • Evaluate where the definition may be sufficient but there are no examples


    Issue 4

    • Agree that a serial or an integrating resource could be issued with content on an accompanying carrier
    • The definition of multipart monograph may not need to be revised if one sticks to “accompanying carrier” and does not switch back between accompany content and accompanying carrier.
    • If predominant carrier is issued with an accompanying secondary carrier, then in terms of issuance, it is a multipart monograph — if it is not on a separate carrier, then there’s no need to worry – it is a single unit in terms of issuance; multipart monograph and single unit have to do with issuance; I don’t think using multipart monograph would actually cause a problem for recording extent; extent may need to be revised to allow for more detailed ways of recording carriers


    Issue 5

    • Agree that the scope of 3.1.4 is currently only for different carrier types. Maybe it should be …”more than one carrier or carrier type” — as noted by the WG, a change at 3.1.4 would also require a similar change at 3.4.1.3, and some examples at specific instructions.


    Issue 6

    • The use of the word ‘accompanying” has caused problems because it makes people search for the old AACR2 term in the Toolkit and then has the potential to lead the cataloguer astray; as the WG points out, J.4.5 — accompanying manifestation relationship, is a totally different concept. It is so tightly defined that it can only be used in one narrow case — only covers “issued with”, and this implies a physical integration on the same carrier. The definition = A manifestation issued with another manifestation, without any relationship to its content. It has to be a different work, as in different works appearing on the same microfilm reel.


    Issue 7

    • Some concern about the examples – “supplement” and “workbook” denote content. Use of such examples has the danger of slipping back to the AACR2 confusion of content and carrier, of which accompanying material was a prime example. Yes, one can use a term in common usage, but it still needs to be a carrier – not a term describing the type of content.


    Issue 8

    • Not sure it even needs to be included if the discussion paper focuses on carrier rather than content


    Diagram

    • The diagram is great; a couple of comments on vocabulary re: clarity/consistency
    • Suggest changing wording of some bubbles in the bottom layer:
    • on far left “Describe the resource as a manifestation of the predominant work (note for accompanying material)”

    • next to far left “Describe all the works manifested, giving preference to the predominant work for sources of information”
    • on far right “Catalog the items with separate records, showing part to whole or component to component relationships”
  2. Robert Bratton says:

    After the discussion at the CC:DA meeting I’ve had more time to think about this issue. Stepping back into the past a bit I asked myself — what IS accompanying material? It is something that is discreet and identifiable that is not a component part of the predominant/primary resource. It is also something that is deemed unworthy of its own separate description. In MARC this means you describe the primary resource and accompanying material on a single bibliographical record. In a perfect non-MARC model, perhaps you would have separate descriptions for each thing, linked by how they relate to each other. In the real world, I seriously doubt this will come to pass.

    I think it is also important to keep in mind that accompanying material can be ANYthing the publisher, etc. issues. As Kathy (I think it was Kathy) noted during the discussion, some institutions consider certain kinds of accompanying material “fluff” while others will want to describe everything.

  3. Robert Bratton says:

    In the discussion paper, the working definition states: “Accompanying material is a secondary part of a resource that contains multiple component parts…” What is meant by “contains multiple component parts?”

Leave a Reply