Print

Print


That’s my impression too, Module 14 is mostly about MARC.  As such it is still very useful as a separate chapter.  When we leave MARC, the content of Module 14 will need a major overhaul, so maybe that would be the time to combine it with what is in Module 17.

 

Mary Jane Cuneo

Serials cataloging and NACO

Information and Technical Services

Harvard Library

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 6:04 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Revising Module 17

 

I agree with Beth.  Ideally, it would make sense to just merge the two modules, but that's asking an awful lot at this stage...

 

KMR

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Beth Guay
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:41 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Revising Module 17

 

 

Unfortunately have been writing procedures for a high priority project rather than getting my hands into Module 14 yet.

 

However, I’ve come up with an approach which I think is the only way to go (again, without a major overhaul of the CCM), which is to view this revision as a matter of semantics. Rather than looking at Module 14 as the Module on “linking relationships,” it has to be approached as the module on using the MARC  linking entry fields in recording relationships between works, expressions, manifestations and items (chapter 24). So it is less about your options and decision-making process  (which Module 17 seems to be more about) and more about the mechanics.

 

Does this make sense?

 

Beth

 

-----------------------------

 

 

Beth Guay

Continuing and Electronic Resources Cataloger

Metadata Services Department

2200 McKeldin Library, University of Maryland

College Park, Maryland 20742

 

(301) 405-9339

fax (301) 314-9971

[log in to unmask]

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mary Grenci
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:25 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Revising Module 17

 

Thanks Regina and Adolfo. 

 

A couple observations:

 

·         Authorized access points are covered in Module 4. 

·         Linking relationships is Module 14. 

·         Relationship designators would need to be covered either in these two modules or in a new one as per previous list discussion, right? I haven't had the chance to peruse that discussion so I don't know if there was a decision in that regard.

 

As for Module 17, it is solely about deciding whether something should be cataloged separately or noted on the record for the main work.  It's this decision-making process that lacks guidance from RDA, as far as I can tell (I did already look at chapter 25 and the relevant appendix J).

 

I'm all for keeping the separate modules.  At the very least, the work of revising the content of CCM would still be divvied up into the 3 groups (especially since there are only 2 editors for Module 17, me and Ed  ;-)  )

 

Does anyone have thoughts on:

 

·         Where I might find RDA guidance on separate cataloging vs. noting on the main record?  FWIW, I did already check out RDA chapter 25 and the relevant appendix....

·         Strong opinions about whether the scope of Module 17 really should include what's currently in other modules?  If the answer is yes, my assumption would be that the various modules currently in existence would keep their editors and either we'd all work together or the content would be combined into a single module later.

 

Mary

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Reynolds, Regina
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 11:32 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Revising Module 17

 

Hello Mary,

 

I believe this module is very needed--RDA is strongly about relationships and I think having a module dedicated to that topic makes sense, even if RDA is not organized that way.  One of the benefits of the CCM is that it takes a different approach than the approach taken by the cataloging codes, whether AACR2 or RDA.  That being said, it is my sense that this module may need some serious updating to take into account how RDA treats related works in terms of authorized access points, what relationships to record, relationship designators, etc.

 

I think the policy statements may provide some help, as well as the PCC guidelines about relationship designators.

 

Regina

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mary Grenci
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 1:58 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCTG1] Revising Module 17

 

Hello everyone,

 

I was silly enough to volunteer to be lead editor for Module 17, Related Works.  I just started looking through the module and searching in RDA for the things it covers, and so far I've had very little luck finding anything in RDA.  I just realized I wasn't searching the LC-PCC PSs so I can try that next, I suppose.

 

But my questions for everyone are:

 

1.       Does this module as it is currently organized fit with the RDA model?

2.       Do the basic concepts (as outlined in 17.1 and fully detailed in later sections) appear anywhere in RDA or the LC-PCC PSs?  If not, should they still remain in the CCM? 

 

I think this type of guidance is still needed, I'm just not sure whether the principles are still correct and what citations to use.

 

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

 

Mary