Were RDA to adopt the term "kit" to its list of unmediated carrier types in 3.3.1.3, and were they to define it with not only the AACR2 verbiage but to also add "a box of stuff" in more eloquent terms. I looked up "kit" in Mirriam-Webster online, and found: *"(3)* *:* a set of parts to be assembled or worked up <a model-airplane *kit*> *(4)* *:* a packaged collection of related material <a convention *kit*>"
To make it more cataloger-friendly, I'd suggest verbiage such as this: 3. a set of parts to be assembled intended for play or education (e.g., Tinker Toys, Snap Circuits, K'Nex, Static Electricity Supply Set) 4. a set of parts to be assembled into a model (pieces to create a model car or a model solar system) 5. a packaged collection of related material (e.g., a set of fossils). which would make the definition look rather like this: Kit 1. An item containing two or more categories of material, no one of which is identifiable as the predominant constituent of the item; also designated “multimedia item<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=Aacr2MultimediaSPACEitemSLASHglossary&hash=MultimediaSPACEitemSLASHglossary>” (q.v.). 2. A single-medium package of textual material (e.g., a “press kit,” a set of printed test materials, an assemblage of printed materials published under the name “Jackdaw”). 3. a set of parts to be assembled intended for play or education (e.g., Tinker Toys, Snap Circuits, K'Nex, Static Electricity Supply Set) 4. a set of parts to be assembled into a model (pieces to create a model of the solar system). 5. a packaged collection of related material (e.g., a set of fossils). See also Activity card<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=Aacr2ActivitySPACEcardSLASHglossary&hash=ActivitySPACEcardSLASHglossary>, Game<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=Aacr2GameSLASHglossary&hash=GameSLASHglossary> . http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kit Were RDA to adopt the term "kit" in such a manner, *then -- and only then *-- would I embrace the term "kit" in my cataloging of such materials. I would actually welcome and embrace this change. Because I catalog these types of things on a daily basis, it has always been a major challenge for me. Thanks for your consideration. Best wishes, Julie On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:33 PM, J. McRee Elrod <m...@slc.bc.ca> wrote: > > Julie said: > > >In RDA, I am not sure what I would do with it! > > Julie raises a very valid concern. The loss of GMD is serious. Also, > the word "object" no more conveys the nature of a kit resource than > "realia". > > For those clients who wish to have something in the GMD position, we > plan to export [338 : 336] as 245$h, e.g., [online resource : text] > for an e-book. > > We will add "kit" to unmediated media. Granted some items in some > kits require "mediation", but the media type placement of the term > will not be displayed. We will not export 337 media type. Not only > would few understand "unmediated", but I know of no library patron who > considers their Kobo or Kindle to be a "computer" (the media type term > RDA uses for what most of us consider to be "electronic" media, and > for which ISBD Area 0 substituted "electronic"). > > > __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) > {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ > ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________ > > > -- Julie Renee Moore Catalog Librarian California State University, Fresno julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com 559-278-5813 "In the end only kindness matters." -- Jewel
