Core CC:DA Public Space

RSCSecretary/2022/2

Recommendation 1:
The wording of this new option is rather confusing:

• Record a note identifying the unit on which the identification of the manifestation is based or its number or publication date, as appropriate.

The "or" seems to be implying that recording a note identifying the manifestation on which the description is based and recording a number or publication date of the manifestation on which the description is based are separate concepts, where similarly worded instructions in the current text make it clear that the number/date are to be included in the information recorded in the note. If "note" and "number/publication date" are really supposed to be separate, this should be two (or even three?) options:

• Record a note identifying the unit on which the identification of the manifestation is based.
• Record the number or publication date of the unit on which the identification of the manifestation is based.

 Otherwise it could be rephrased to remove the impression that these are distinct choices:

• Record a note identifying the unit on which the identification of the manifestation is based. Include the number or publication date of the unit, as appropriate.

Recommendation 8:
The Definition and Scope section of Work: frequency also uses the term "part." Does this also need to be corrected to "unit"?

Recommendation 9:
Neither "multiple unit serial" nor "serial, multiple unit" are satisfactory as see/use for references, if the purpose of a reference is to direct people from the term they want to use to the term they should use or from a preferred term to a more familiar one. I cannot find any evidence that the term "multiple unit serial" has ever been used by catalogers and, anecdotally, at least one CONSER cataloger shares the opinion that its intended meaning is unclear. (A personal observation: I would never think to look under "multiple unit serial" and "serial, multiple unit" seems, if anything, like a violation of the Gricean maxim of quantity: an added qualifier implying that "multiple unit" serial is somehow different from "regular" serial.)

Is there some editorial policy that would prevent using qualifiers, as many dictionaries, controlled vocabularies, etc. do, to distinguish between distinct senses of a word, such as "serial [type of work]" and "serial [mode of issuance]"?  Avoiding such constructions for preferred terms is sensible, but for cross references it is not, especially if it forces you to invent terms no one would think to use and present them as terms that have been used.

RSCSecretary/2022/3

We support the proposal.

RSCSecretary/2022/4

We support the proposal and are glad to see the additional subheadings for clarity.

------------------------------
Keith Knop
University of Georgia
------------------------------