Core CC:DA Public Space

Regarding the "filmed with" and "on disc with" situation, I get the sense that these are effectively "bound with" situations for carriers other than volumes. I can't help but wonder if there are further ways to align and consolidate these instructions for the resulting aggregates? I am also mindful that "bound with" historically applied to manifestations where such a "bound with" dynamic was brought about by the publisher rather than any post-publication effort by an owner (is that restriction still in effect -- the definition no longer seems so specific?). The "filmed with" and "on disc with" as aggregates on a new carrier for previously published content seem to represent a grey zone -- the original content was published separately but the publisher who is reproducing the content on a new carrier is engaging a post-publication activity with respect to the original content. This is not entirely the same as an owner creating an aggregate but it opens the question of the point at which aggregates are created. Maybe that is the whole point of the "on manifestation with" and "on carrier unit with" elements as distinct from the "bound with" element? Apologies if that is the case and I'm having an Emily Litella moment. 

Background on the cataloging rules around "with" and "bound with" compilations

John's comments sent me down quite the rabbit hole! The term "bound with" only appears in the AACR2 index, as a reference to the entry for "With" notes. That entry lists the general rule at 1.7B21 and the related format specific rules in chapters 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, and 12.

2.7B21 says:

"With" notes. If the description is of a separately titled part of an item lacking a collective title, make a note beginning With: listing the other separately titled parts of the item in the order in which they appear there. 

The LCRI for 1.7B21 (I viewed the 2007 compilation and what follows is a paraphrase) states that LC generally creates separate bibliographic records and applies the "with" note in copy-specific situations, when independently issued works have been subsequently placed together under one cover. The RI continues with guidance specific to rare materials and to general cataloging. 

In original RDA, "bound with" appears in the Glossary, as a relationship designator in J.5.5, and in an example in 28.1.1.3. 

In official RDA, "bound with" is an element (and thus appears in the Glossary); its broader term is "held with".

After reading the cataloging rules, I started to wonder why I have a clear vision of the distinction between "with" and "bound with" compilations. I suspect that derives from MARC 21, which specifies the use of field 501 for when "more than one bibliographical work is contained in the physical item at the time of publishing, release, issue, or execution." I would use a 590 (or other appropriate local field based on ILS requirements) for a copy-specific compilation.

Thoughts on the relationship between the Official RDA element bound with and the other item-item relationships in this proposal

John's comments prompted me to take a look at the differences between the  following two Official RDA elements:

• on manifestation with - definition/scope: An item that is reproduced on the same manifestation as an item.
• bound with - definition/scope: An item that is physically combined with an item to form a collection manifestation.

I admit that I'm not up to speed with the changes made to accommodate collection works, expressions, and manifestations, but that appears to be the primary distinction between these two terms. If that distinction needs to be preserved, it's fine with me.

Deprecating filmed with item and on disc with item in favor of only using on manifestation with

I generally support this recommendation, but I'm confused by the use of the term "reproduced" in the definition/scope of on manifestation with. This concept is not in the definitions of filmed with item (An item that is contained on the same microform as an item) and on disc with item (An item that is contained on the same disc as an item.) 

I recommend rephrasing the definition of on manifestation with to the following: An item that is contained on the same manifestation as an item.

Deprecating filmed with manifestation and on disc with manifestation in favor of only using on carrier unit with

I generally support this recommendation, but I note a slight wording difference between the existing scope notes. Do we lose something important if the "issued with" terminology disappears from the definition, or is the reference in the Glossary to on carrier unit with sufficient?

• on carrier unit with - definition/scope: A manifestation that is a part of the same carrier unit as another part manifestation.
• filmed with manifestation - definition/scope: A manifestation that is issued on the same microform with a manifestation being described.
• on disc with manifestation - definition/scope: A manifestation that is issued on the same disc with a manifestation being described.

Deprecating scale of still image or three-dimensional form

Agree.

Sorry for the length of this post!

Kathy

Regarding the "filmed with" and "on disc with" situation, I get the sense that these are effectively "bound with" situations for carriers other than volumes. I can't help but wonder if there are further ways to align and consolidate these instructions for the resulting aggregates? I am also mindful that "bound with" historically applied to manifestations where such a "bound with" dynamic was brought about by the publisher rather than any post-publication effort by an owner (is that restriction still in effect -- the definition no longer seems so specific?). The "filmed with" and "on disc with" as aggregates on a new carrier for previously published content seem to represent a grey zone -- the original content was published separately but the publisher who is reproducing the content on a new carrier is engaging a post-publication activity with respect to the original content. This is not entirely the same as an owner creating an aggregate but it opens the question of the point at which aggregates are created. Maybe that is the whole point of the "on manifestation with" and "on carrier unit with" elements as distinct from the "bound with" element? Apologies if that is the case and I'm having an Emily Litella moment. 

Background on the cataloging rules around "with" and "bound with" compilations

John's comments sent me down quite the rabbit hole! The term "bound with" only appears in the AACR2 index, as a reference to the entry for "With" notes. That entry lists the general rule at 1.7B21 and the related format specific rules in chapters 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, and 12.

2.7B21 says:

"With" notes. If the description is of a separately titled part of an item lacking a collective title, make a note beginning With: listing the other separately titled parts of the item in the order in which they appear there. 

The LCRI for 1.7B21 (I viewed the 2007 compilation and what follows is a paraphrase) states that LC generally creates separate bibliographic records and applies the "with" note in copy-specific situations, when independently issued works have been subsequently placed together under one cover. The RI continues with guidance specific to rare materials and to general cataloging. 

In original RDA, "bound with" appears in the Glossary, as a relationship designator in J.5.5, and in an example in 28.1.1.3. 

In official RDA, "bound with" is an element (and thus appears in the Glossary); its broader term is "held with".

After reading the cataloging rules, I started to wonder why I have a clear vision of the distinction between "with" and "bound with" compilations. I suspect that derives from MARC 21, which specifies the use of field 501 for when "more than one bibliographical work is contained in the physical item at the time of publishing, release, issue, or execution." I would use a 590 (or other appropriate local field based on ILS requirements) for a copy-specific compilation.

Thoughts on the relationship between the Official RDA element bound with and the other item-item relationships in this proposal

John's comments prompted me to take a look at the differences between the  following two Official RDA elements:

• on manifestation with - definition/scope: An item that is reproduced on the same manifestation as an item.
• bound with - definition/scope: An item that is physically combined with an item to form a collection manifestation.

I admit that I'm not up to speed with the changes made to accommodate collection works, expressions, and manifestations, but that appears to be the primary distinction between these two terms. If that distinction needs to be preserved, it's fine with me.

Deprecating filmed with item and on disc with item in favor of only using on manifestation with

I generally support this recommendation, but I'm confused by the use of the term "reproduced" in the definition/scope of on manifestation with. This concept is not in the definitions of filmed with item (An item that is contained on the same microform as an item) and on disc with item (An item that is contained on the same disc as an item.) 

I recommend rephrasing the definition of on manifestation with to the following: An item that is contained on the same manifestation as an item.

Deprecating filmed with manifestation and on disc with manifestation in favor of only using on carrier unit with

I generally support this recommendation, but I note a slight wording difference between the existing scope notes. Do we lose something important if the "issued with" terminology disappears from the definition, or is the reference in the Glossary to on carrier unit with sufficient?

• on carrier unit with - definition/scope: A manifestation that is a part of the same carrier unit as another part manifestation.
• filmed with manifestation - definition/scope: A manifestation that is issued on the same microform with a manifestation being described.
• on disc with manifestation - definition/scope: A manifestation that is issued on the same disc with a manifestation being described.

Deprecating scale of still image or three-dimensional form

Agree.

Sorry for the length of this post!

Kathy

I support these proposal recommendations, as well as Kathy's recommendation to revise the definition of Item: on manifestation with.  Hope that RSC publish example‑driven guidance for: