Mac,
You are too funny!
I know, you are very predictable in your choice of a kit for a box of
stuff. In my final bib record, I did actually mention the wig and pins in a
note. I didn't duplicate the entire bib record here. I prefer the GMD model
because this is a representation of a person (and a situation).
My point was regarding the 336, 337, 338 as the replacement for the GMD
.... as well as the issue about whether or not really any 3D thing is
tactile.
Julie
PS In answer to your first query ... not yet -- but I have come to work
with stranger things on my desk to catalog! ;-)
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 7:59 PM, J. McRee Elrod <m...@slc.bc.ca> wrote:
> Julie Moore, cataloguer of everything, said:
>
> >Mac, you are not alone in your stewing!
>
> I took out the line which said I'll bet not even Julie has had a dildo
> to catalogue.
>
> >It is supposed to give people a graphic representation of how "getting
> >wasted" can make people look, well, bad! ... I ended up choosing
> [model].
>
> While it had a model in it, there are enough pieces of various sorts I
> would of course have called it a [kit]. Model seems too static a term
> for a resource with pieces to manipulate.
>
> >As much as I dither over which GMD to choose in AACR2, I remain
> >unconvinced that the 336, 337, and 338 fields more accurately and
> >succinctly convey to users what the thing is that they should expect
> >...
>
> I agree that RDA offers no terms which would convey meaning to a
> patron for this resource. RDA doesn't even have "kit".
>
> >300 1 2-sided model (2 pieces) :$b plastic, col. ; $c 74 x 42 x
> >22 cm. (assembled) + $e 1 information tent.
>
> I suspect we would have gone with 300 $a1 kit (various pieces) ;$cin
> box 74 x 42 x 22 cm., and included your collation information in the
> 520 summary, using curves after each item, or in a 505 contents.
>
> >In RDA, I am assuming that we will have something like this: ...
>
> >336 three-dimensional form $2 rdacontent
> >-or-
> >336 tactile three-dimensional form $2 rdacontent
> >337 unmediated $2 rdamedia
> >338 object $2 rdacarrier
>
> Terms in 336 are repeatable, either in repeating $a or in repeating
> 336's. There is no provision for plural, however. You have more than
> one form. Should the same term be repeated X times, including once
> for the wig, and twice for the 2 pins?
>
> You don't mention the wig and pins in either AACR2 or RDA, which would
> be easier to do with "(various pieces)" and a 505 or 520, without over
> complicating the 300 it seems to me.
>
>
> > Do the 336, 337, and 338 fields more accurately and succinctly
> >convey to users >the Wasted Away mannequin that is being represented
> >in the record?
>
> No. They express nothing more succinctly.
>
> > And finally getting around to Ma' point, it is unclear to me when we
> >call it tactile or not in the 336.
>
> I assume a tactile three-dimensional form is a model one is supposed
> to feel. It seems to me calling at a "model", and saying in 520 that
> it is to be felt, works better. Media terms should be *one* word
> drawn from common usage.
>
> We have media terms for sight, touch, and hearing. What about smell
> and taste? :-{)}
>
>
> __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing
> HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/<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
