(Speaking of the wonky, schizoid system)
MARC Bibliographic uses the term “bibliographic item” throughout, e.g. “Chronological Relationship - Relationship in time between bibliographic items (e.g., the relation of a serial to its predecessors and successors)”
CCM also uses “item” in its terminology, e.g., “Reciprocal relationship. The relationship between two items, as represented by paired linking fields (e.g., 780/785) or by a link with the same tag that is given in each related record (e.g., 775).”
I’m feeling as if I should completely get away from using definitions that conflict with RDA definitions. In fact my instinct is to attempt to completely dismiss the use of the MARC definitions. I’m feeling that the CCM term “item” at least in this example, could easily be substituted with the term “resource” however.
Just wanted to share this thought with the group.