I don’t think that we can’t have a term in the CCM just because it isn’t used in RDA. If we think the term is useful in the context of the guidance provided in the CCM, we should still be able to use it as long as we offer a clear definition within the CCM.
While I appreciate that there is some advantage to having guidelines grouped by data elements, even RDA acknowledges (perhaps reluctantly) that there are still differences in how description is done for what we currently know as bibliographic formats by having guidelines that pertain to specific formats such as serials. When concerns were raised about the organization of RDA, we were told by the architects of RDA (or perhaps placated is the word, depending on your perspective) that all our concerns would be resolved by scoping features for bibliographic format in what we know now as the RDA Toolkit, which has yet to happen. While perhaps the concept of bibliographic formats will be moot for future catalogers (although I suspect that the concept of seriality will remain), it’s still a relevant concept today. I find, though, that for the generalist cataloger, RDA both in its organization and how it’s presented in the RDA Toolkit, falls short in its presentation of a practical approach to completing bibliographic description efficiently.
It is for this reason that tools such as the CONSER Cataloging Manual are so important to today’s catalogers and will remain so. The CCM isn’t a substitute for using the RDA Toolkit, but having a clear presentation of guidelines and strategies for decision making for bibliographic description of continuing resources, is as they say in the MasterCard commercials, priceless!
Lead Librarian for Cataloging
Ralph J. Bunche Library
U.S. Dept. of State
2201 C Street NW, Rm. 2438
Washington, DC 20520
(202) 647-2191 voice
(202) 647-0203 fax
Ready to take your research skills to the next level?
This email is UNCLASSIFIED.
The term isn't in the RDA glossary, but it is in the index, as a reference to "Integrating resources" and "Serials". This is something that I addressed in an article on RDA for Serials Librarian a couple years ago. The last paragraph in the section was:
Yet the fact remained that although serials and integrating resources have several characteristics in common, there were still many ways in which instructions for integrating resources and serials differed in AACR2. The structure of RDA is entirely different. Instructions having to do with format and mode of issuance are not gathered into chapters specific to format and mode of issuance; instead, they are spread throughout the entire code, discussed as appropriate under each element to which they pertain. To have three types of issuance (serial, integrating resources, and the combined continuing resource) would needlessly complicate the instructions, since a cataloger would then sometimes find instructions captioned as being for “serials” and other times find them captioned “continuing resources.” The concept of continuing resources is an important one; aside from making a great improvement to AACR2 it has helped broaden understanding of matters of seriality in the profession. But in the context of RDA, the term “continuing resources” is simply not necessary for the instructions.
I think the term may still be useful in parts of our documentation, when we need to refer collectively to the different kinds of resources. But the phrase "An electronic serial is a continuing resource that is accessed ..." probably doesn't need it, because the continuing nature is already applied in the term "serial".