I sent this as a response on OLAC-L, please excuse the cross-posting. Dear Kelley,
When you wrote: "What Julie seems to be looking for is some way to give users an early warning of what they're going to get, especially if they're not expecting to find non-book objects in the library catalog" you were absolutely correct! In regular English, no, I would not call this either kit or realia ... so I am sure that our patrons would not call it that, either. As you all well know, I am not crazy about the term "kit". I am even less satisfied with the term "realia". (Even the OCLC spellchecker doesn't like realia!) But even more than my dissatisfaction with the terms "kit" and "realia", I do not want my catalog to go without an early warning that this thing is a non-book, 3D object! The term I would pick would probably be "object" ... or "box of stuff " ... but in RDA/MARC, "object" does not come until later on in the record. Yes, the GMD is problematic. You do not have to convince me of that. I'd love to see us get around the GMD ... but right now in 2011, the majority of us are still using AACR2 and MARC to catalog. In looking to the future with RDA/MARC, it is a huge concern to me to drop the GMD and have the 336-338 fields (which are not even meant to be displayed) as the GMD replacement. Unfortunately, the icons do not convey enough to let me know what's coming. If they are meaningless to me, I am sure they are meaningless to the patron. As an aside, one of the things that I particularly enjoy about amazon.comand the other distributor's websites is the use of pictures, which I see are in place in your examples from the BSU catalog. We have book jackets, but no photos of these 3D objects. I think that the photos go a long way in explaining to the patron what this record represents and what to expect. Even when I have written to OLAC-L, I have often included a url to the photograph of the object -- or box of stuff, so that people can get a better idea of what it is that I am trying to explain. I would like for our catalogs to make better use of pictures of the actual object to give the patron more information. Even better, in Amazon.com, if you do a search for "wasted away", you get this long hit list (8,312 results -- so terribly unhelpful) .... but two things that I will give Amazon.com credit for is that they have both a photo and short descriptor, so you know whether you are looking at a paperback, a hardback, or sheet music, for example. Once you have figured out what you probably are looking for, you can click on the brief display to go into the full record display. (Unfortunately, my mannequin is not on Amazon.com.) http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=clogs&x=0&y=0#/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=wasted+away&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Awasted+away Happy Cataloging! Julie On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Kelley McGrath <kell...@uoregon.edu> wrote: > I sent this to the OLAC list earlier today and it repeats at least some of > what I wrote before, but may still be useful--Kelley > > -----Original Message----- > > Hi Julie and all, > > My 2+ cents… > > If you could pick any term or short phrase in the world to convey what this > is to library users would you really pick kit? Even leaving off AACR2's > technical definition, do user have a shared understanding of what a kit is? > Does the fact that we keep agonizing over 3-d object GMDs in AACR2 perhaps > suggest that all is not well with that paradigm? The primary drawbacks to > me > seem to be that they are not mutually exclusive and they are arbitrary in > what they bring out. Toys, yes; musical instruments (we had a lot at my > last > library), no. > > Let's look back at what AACR2 seems to be trying to do here. > > *Kit* > > Julie previously gave the AACR2 definition of 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” (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”). See also Activity > card, Game. > > The first definition of kit is easier to understand if you start with the > list 1 (British) term of multimedia. > > Multimedia = multiple media = multiple general material types = multiple > GMDs > > AACR2 does not allow compound GMDs so it had to have some way of dealing > with things that don't fit into a single primary category. AACR2's solution > is kit/multimedia. RDA doesn't need kit/multimedia because it allows you to > record all the component carrier and content types, although a case could > be > made that it would be useful to be able to say whether you're describing > multiple main content/carrier types or a main content/carrier type with > accompanying material. > > The second definition of kit is IMO not really a logically defensible > category. I suspect it was included because they were common at the time > and > people wanted to distinguish them from books and to shelve them separately. > > *Realia* > > AACR2: > Realia (list 2 for Australia, North America) An artefact or a naturally > occurring entity, as opposed to a replica. See also Object, Toy. > > Object (list 1 for U.K.) > A three-dimensional artefact (or replica of an artefact) or a naturally > occurring entity. See also Realia. > > AACR2 Chapter 10 (Three-Dimensional Artefacts and Realia) gives as its > scope: > The rules in this chapter cover the description of three-dimensional > objects > of all kinds (other than those covered in previous chapters), including > models, dioramas, games (including puzzles and simulations), braille > cassettes, sculptures and other three-dimensional art works, exhibits, > machines, and clothing. They also cover the description of naturally > occurring objects, including microscope specimens (or representations of > them) and other specimens mounted for viewing. For the description of > three-dimensional cartographic materials (e.g., relief models, globes), see > chapter 3. > > Artifact = "something created by humans usually for a practical purpose" > (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artifact) > > In AACR2 I suspect artifact is being used to broadly mean all objects > created by humans. Naturally-occurring objects + objects created by humans > would seem to comprise most objects (except those created by non-human > entities?) so the intent of object would seem to be to include all objects > that aren't covered elsewhere in AACR2 as a specific type of content > carrier. > > Again, the list 1 term (object) is perhaps a more intuitive category and is > certainly more logically coherent. This is basically the class of things > that are included in the object carrier type in RDA. > > At the time the GMDs were created, it was apparently important to some > parties to bring out certain types of materials that were commonly > collected > by libraries (art original, art reproduction, diorama, game, microscope > slide, model, toy). Everything else was left over in the realia category > (do > any patrons know what realia means?). I think sometimes different colored > catalog cards were associated with different GMDs. This system maybe made > sense in the card catalog days, but I think RDA was right to go with the > clear-cut, logically consistent category of "object." > > What Julie seems to be looking for is some way to give users an early > warning of what they're going to get, especially if they're not expecting > to > find nonbook objects in the library catalog. Here are a few possible ways > to > approach this. > > I think someone suggested displaying SMDs (RDA extent) in hit lists. I do > get the impression that users are often more interested in carriers at this > more specific level. At least some existing catalogs are capable of doing > this and it wouldn't seem to be technically difficult. IU does it for > music; > see > > http://goo.gl/sNLFo > > for an example. > > Also, RDA has a new element Form of Work (MARC 380), which is defined as "A > class or genre to which a work belongs." This is free text so you could say > anything. If your system (which is not a cataloging rules problem) could be > made to display this usefully in hit lists, catalogers would have maximum > flexibility to display to users what something is (with the one caveat that > this is at the work level which can be tricky with 3-d objects where the > physicality of the object is often inextricably interwoven with its > essence). > > In my presentation at the ALCTS RDA 201 preconference (which I still hope > to > find the time to clean up and post in a useful version), I gave the > examples > of > > Cat in the Hat (Toy) > Cat in the Hat (Soft toy) > Cat in the Hat (Hand puppet) > > The latter two represent real objects in the collection of my former POW. > RDA allows for a more useful distinction than the AACR2 GMD of toy. Form of > work can be included in access points for works (u.t.'s), although if I > read > 6.27.1.9 Additions to Access Points Representing Works correctly it > unfortunately appears that you can only do this when you need it to > distinguish things with the same or similar titles. > > RDA 7.2 Nature of the Content might also be useful. It is not entirely > clear > to me what the intended distinction between Form of Work and Nature of the > Content is. > > For collocation, I like genre/form terms because they're expansible and can > be applied at multiple levels simultaneously. So at my previous library, we > would use sets like > > Genre/Form: Clogs. > Genre/Form: Shoes. > Genre/Form: Clothing and dress--Netherlands. > Genre/Form: Cultural objects--Netherlands. (local heading) > > Users could get all the shoes (http://goo.gl/fgK62), all the articles of > clothing (http://goo.gl/EqCnW), all the cultural objects > (http://goo.gl/fRVE5), or even all the cultural objects from a country > such > as the Netherlands (http://goo.gl/PhcAA) or region such as Latin America > (http://goo.gl/Y89QQ) (go 043 and boo for Symphony's truncation of long > searches). > > Kelley > > *** > From: OnLine Audiovisual Catalogers electronic discussion list. > [mailto:ola...@oclc.org] On Behalf Of Julie Moore > Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 4:27 PM > To: ola...@oclc.org > Subject: [OLAC-L] Cataloging Wasted Away > > Get a load of what I am cataloging now! It's called the Wasted Away > Display. > > > It is supposed to give people a graphic representation of how "getting > wasted" can make people look, well, bad! > Included: > 1 mannequin with t-shirt > 1 mannequin head (with a face on each side -- one wasted and one not! (Is > this a tête-bêche?!) > 1 wig > 3 wig pins > > So I am back to my old GMD question. > > What do you think? > > Realia? > Kit? > Model? > > Julie > > > -- > Julie Renee Moore > Catalog Librarian > California State University, Fresno > julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com > 559-278-5813 > > "In the end only kindness matters." -- Jewel > -- Julie Renee Moore Catalog Librarian California State University, Fresno julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com 559-278-5813 "In the end only kindness matters." -- Jewel
