Core CC:DA Public Space

I have read through the proposal to alter instances of "multipart monograph" to "multiple unit" and "serial" to "serial work", and appreciate the desire for terminological consistency that is motivating it. I am, however, quite uncomfortable with Recommendation 9, which proposes distinguishing between the direct entry form for the term "Multiple unit serial" and the indirect form of the phrase "Serial, Multiple unit", with the former serving as a UF term for "Serial work" and the latter, as a UF term for "Multiple unit".  I have two reasons for my feeling of unease regarding this: 

1. It seems that the distinction between "Multiple unit serial" and "Serial, Multiple unit" is morphological and (presumably)  not semantic. (After all, this is how direct vs. indirect forms typically work: for example, in LCSH, the preferred term "Philosophy, Ancient"  has the same meaning as its variant "Ancient philosophy").  However, if there is no difference in meaning between "Multiple unit serial" and "Serial, Multiple unit", then there seems no good ground to correlate the former to "Serial work" only and the latter to the "Serial, Multiple unit". The "Use for" and "See" relationships control for (near) synonymy and so are semantic relations: it thus seems very odd that, of two terms that differ only in their form and so are, presumably, synonyms or near synonyms, one has a relationship to "Serial work" only and not "Multiple unit serial" and the other  has a relationships to "Multiple unit" only and not to "Serial work" as well. It is clear from the wording of the proposal that the proposer wants to find a way of linking the concept of multiple unit serials to the mode-of-issuance term "Multiple unit" and that his or her concern is primarily with finding a way of cross-referencing the concept of multiple unit serials to "Multiple unit" without equating the latter tout court with multiple unit serials. However, it seems to me that treating  the  inverted term "Serial, Multiple unit" as if it were semantically distinct from the direct form term "Multiple serial unit" is not an optimal solution: most catalogers will expected an inverted term to have the same meaning as a direct form and so may find the fact that both are used in the glossary but without any apparent relation to each other to be confusing. 

2. The proposal to create a cross reference from "Serials, Multiple unit" to "Multiple unit" also seems to reveal a problem in terms of semantic relations. In the May 2022 version of the glossary, the only cross-reference to "Multiple unit" is from "Multipart monograph". This implies that "Multipart monograph" and Multiple unit" are synonymous terms. If one adds a cross-reference from "Serials, Multiple unit" to "Multiple unit", this seems to imply a synonymy relation between these two terms as well: after all, in synonymy relationships, if Term A is a synonym of Term B and Term C is a synonym of Term B, then Term A is a synonym of Term C.  However, nobody would want to make the claim that "Multipart monograph" is a synonym (or even a near synonym) of "Serials, Multiple unit" because a monograph is, by definition, not a serial. Here, it seems that it is the "See" and "Use for" relationship that is problematic, since "Multipart monograph" and "Serials, Multiple unit" are, in fact, different kinds of "Multiple unit" -- that is to say, the relationship here is a generic (genus-species) relationship and not a synonym relationship. Thus, it might be better to use the "See also" and "See from" relationship for these particular cross-references. 

Ultimately, I do not have a good solution to offer in place of Recommendation 9 but think that this particular recommendation requires more thought before this proposal is approved. 

Thomas M. Dousa 
Metadata Analyst Librarian
The University of Chicago 
Catholic Library Association (CLA) Liaison to CC:DA

------------------------------
Thomas Dousa
Metadata Analyst Librarian
University of Chicago Library
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 9/8/2022 11:17:00 PM
From: Thomas Dousa
Subject: Feedback Comment - RSC/RSCSecretary/2002/2, Recommendation 9

I have read through the proposal to alter instances of "multipart monograph" to "multiple unit" and "serial" to "serial work", and appreciate the desire for terminological consistency that is motivating it. I am, however, quite uncomfortable with Recommendation 9, which proposes distinguishing between the direct entry form for the term "Multiple unit serial" and the indirect form of the phrase "Serial, Multiple unit", with the former serving as a UF term for "Serial work" and the latter, as a UF term for "Multiple unit".  I have two reasons for my feeling of unease regarding this: 

1. It seems that the distinction between "Multiple unit serial" and "Serial, Multiple unit" is morphological and (presumably)  not semantic. (After all, this is how direct vs. indirect forms typically work: for example, in LCSH, the preferred term "Philosophy, Ancient"  has the same meaning as its variant "Ancient philosophy").  However, if there is no difference in meaning between "Multiple unit serial" and "Serial, Multiple unit", then there seems no good ground to correlate the former to "Serial work" only and the latter to the "Serial, Multiple unit". The "Use for" and "See" relationships control for (near) synonymy and so are semantic relations: it thus seems very odd that, of two terms that differ only in their form and so are, presumably, synonyms or near synonyms, one has a relationship to "Serial work" only and not "Multiple unit serial" and the other  has a relationships to "Multiple unit" only and not to "Serial work" as well. It is clear from the wording of the proposal that the proposer wants to find a way of linking the concept of multiple unit serials to the mode-of-issuance term "Multiple unit" and that his or her concern is primarily with finding a way of cross-referencing the concept of multiple unit serials to "Multiple unit" without equating the latter tout court with multiple unit serials. However, it seems to me that treating  the  inverted term "Serial, Multiple unit" as if it were semantically distinct from the direct form term "Multiple serial unit" is not an optimal solution: most catalogers will expected an inverted term to have the same meaning as a direct form and so may find the fact that both are used in the glossary but without any apparent relation to each other to be confusing. 

2. The proposal to create a cross reference from "Serials, Multiple unit" to "Multiple unit" also seems to reveal a problem in terms of semantic relations. In the May 2022 version of the glossary, the only cross-reference to "Multiple unit" is from "Multipart monograph". This implies that "Multipart monograph" and Multiple unit" are synonymous terms. If one adds a cross-reference from "Serials, Multiple unit" to "Multiple unit", this seems to imply a synonymy relation between these two terms as well: after all, in synonymy relationships, if Term A is a synonym of Term B and Term C is a synonym of Term B, then Term A is a synonym of Term C.  However, nobody would want to make the claim that "Multipart monograph" is a synonym (or even a near synonym) of "Serials, Multiple unit" because a monograph is, by definition, not a serial. Here, it seems that it is the "See" and "Use for" relationship that is problematic, since "Multipart monograph" and "Serials, Multiple unit" are, in fact, different kinds of "Multiple unit" -- that is to say, the relationship here is a generic (genus-species) relationship and not a synonym relationship. Thus, it might be better to use the "See also" and "See from" relationship for these particular cross-references. 

Ultimately, I do not have a good solution to offer in place of Recommendation 9 but think that this particular recommendation requires more thought before this proposal is approved. 

Thomas M. Dousa 
Metadata Analyst Librarian
The University of Chicago 
Catholic Library Association (CLA) Liaison to CC:DA

------------------------------
Thomas Dousa
Metadata Analyst Librarian
University of Chicago Library
------------------------------

I share concerns about the proposed cross-references in Recommendation 9. It seems that in the current understanding of mode of issuance there are two options, either a manifestation is complete in a single unit, or it is complete in multiple units. Those are the options regardless of whether it is a monograph, integrating resource, serial, or something else. If that is the case, then there should be no cross-references, because the mode of issuance is a separate concept from whether something is a diachronic or a static work. It seems like it would create more confusion than clarity to conflate the two in the glossary when RDA is separating them elsewhere.

------------------------------
Jeanette Norris
Manager, Monographic Latin Script Cataloging
Yale University
She/Her/Hers
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: Sep 09, 2022 10:31 AM
From: John Myers
Subject: Feedback Comment - RSC/RSCSecretary/2002/2, Recommendation 9

I confess that I got rather lost in the intricacies of moving from the simpler (but less stringently modeled) terminology of prior standards to the post-3R differentiation among single unit monographs, multiple unit monographs, multiple unit diachronic monographs, multiple unit serials, etc., etc. Which is to say, I glossed over many of the details in RSCSecretary/2022/2. Having said that, I thank Thomas for highlighting concerns with this particular recommendation in the proposal. I find his observations apt. And I will observe that my getting lost in the proposal's text, even as someone closely connected to the nearly 20 year journey of RDA development, serves to highlight Thomas' concern around creating confusion for rank-and-file catalogers with respect to these glossary entries.

I too do not have concrete recommendations for improvements to these glossary entries and associated cross references. My only suggestion would be further exploration and leveraging of the concepts around diachronicity and seriality that were introduced under the 3R Project. Much as units are here being deployed in place of the historical use of "parts" for components, so as to have clearly distinguished terminology from musical parts, we will need to carefully navigate the mental landscape and new terminology for diachronic monograph works (which, as I interpret Thomas' analysis to be articulating, lies at the heart of the need for the inverted "Serial, Multiple unit" phraseology).

John Myers, Catalog & Metadata Librarian

CC:DA Liaison to the MARC Advisory Committee

Schaffer Library, Union College

Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623

myersj@union.edu

pronouns: he/him/his

Original Message:
Sent: 9/8/2022 11:17:00 PM
From: Thomas Dousa
Subject: Feedback Comment - RSC/RSCSecretary/2002/2, Recommendation 9

I have read through the proposal to alter instances of "multipart monograph" to "multiple unit" and "serial" to "serial work", and appreciate the desire for terminological consistency that is motivating it. I am, however, quite uncomfortable with Recommendation 9, which proposes distinguishing between the direct entry form for the term "Multiple unit serial" and the indirect form of the phrase "Serial, Multiple unit", with the former serving as a UF term for "Serial work" and the latter, as a UF term for "Multiple unit".  I have two reasons for my feeling of unease regarding this:

1. It seems that the distinction between "Multiple unit serial" and "Serial, Multiple unit" is morphological and (presumably)  not semantic. (After all, this is how direct vs. indirect forms typically work: for example, in LCSH, the preferred term "Philosophy, Ancient"  has the same meaning as its variant "Ancient philosophy").  However, if there is no difference in meaning between "Multiple unit serial" and "Serial, Multiple unit", then there seems no good ground to correlate the former to "Serial work" only and the latter to the "Serial, Multiple unit". The "Use for" and "See" relationships control for (near) synonymy and so are semantic relations: it thus seems very odd that, of two terms that differ only in their form and so are, presumably, synonyms or near synonyms, one has a relationship to "Serial work" only and not "Multiple unit serial" and the other  has a relationships to "Multiple unit" only and not to "Serial work" as well. It is clear from the wording of the proposal that the proposer wants to find a way of linking the concept of multiple unit serials to the mode-of-issuance term "Multiple unit" and that his or her concern is primarily with finding a way of cross-referencing the concept of multiple unit serials to "Multiple unit" without equating the latter tout court with multiple unit serials. However, it seems to me that treating  the  inverted term "Serial, Multiple unit" as if it were semantically distinct from the direct form term "Multiple serial unit" is not an optimal solution: most catalogers will expected an inverted term to have the same meaning as a direct form and so may find the fact that both are used in the glossary but without any apparent relation to each other to be confusing.

2. The proposal to create a cross reference from "Serials, Multiple unit" to "Multiple unit" also seems to reveal a problem in terms of semantic relations. In the May 2022 version of the glossary, the only cross-reference to "Multiple unit" is from "Multipart monograph". This implies that "Multipart monograph" and Multiple unit" are synonymous terms. If one adds a cross-reference from "Serials, Multiple unit" to "Multiple unit", this seems to imply a synonymy relation between these two terms as well: after all, in synonymy relationships, if Term A is a synonym of Term B and Term C is a synonym of Term B, then Term A is a synonym of Term C.  However, nobody would want to make the claim that "Multipart monograph" is a synonym (or even a near synonym) of "Serials, Multiple unit" because a monograph is, by definition, not a serial. Here, it seems that it is the "See" and "Use for" relationship that is problematic, since "Multipart monograph" and "Serials, Multiple unit" are, in fact, different kinds of "Multiple unit" -- that is to say, the relationship here is a generic (genus-species) relationship and not a synonym relationship. Thus, it might be better to use the "See also" and "See from" relationship for these particular cross-references.

Ultimately, I do not have a good solution to offer in place of Recommendation 9 but think that this particular recommendation requires more thought before this proposal is approved.

Thomas M. Dousa
Metadata Analyst Librarian
The University of Chicago
Catholic Library Association (CLA) Liaison to CC:DA

------------------------------
Thomas Dousa
Metadata Analyst Librarian
University of Chicago Library
------------------------------