RDA-L

Hello,

The other day, we had a discussion about the element "mode of issuance" with respect to board games. If we don't think in terms of MARC coding, but only about the meaning of this element,  would a board game be a single unit or a multiple unit?

There was already a discussion on Autocat on this question, but I'd love to hear more opinions.

Note that in Germany, we still use the Original Toolkit's terminology (single unit, multipart monograph, serial, integrating resource) for this element, whereas in the Official Toolkit, there is now only "single unit" vs. "multiple unit" (with "multipart monograph" given as a synonym). But I don't think this makes a difference for my question.

The definition of multiple unit is: "A mode of issuance of a manifestation that is issued as a multipart physical unit or intangible multipart logical unit."
I am only interested in the first part, as we are not talking about digital objects.

I think that this definition refers only to the physical aspect, so that a board game (including a game board and, e.g., pieces, cards, dice, game instructions) should fall under "multiple unit". The parts are also equally important, so it's not a case of a predominant component and accompanying material.

But in the discussion on Autocat, there appeared a second view of looking at what is meant by "multipart". So we have two possible interpretations as how to decide between single unit and multiple unit:

1) Does the object *physically* consist of only one or of several parts?

2) Is the object *functionally* a single or a multipart unit?

For the second view, the main argument was that all the parts of a board game are needed for the play, and that it is sold and lent as a whole. However, there are other cases where objects which function only as a whole but are regarded as being multipart (like an audiobook on 3 CDs).

So I wonder which interpretation of the meaning of "mode of issuance" is correct? Is it about the physical or the functional aspect?

Thanks,
Heidrun

Dear Heidrun,

I have not seen anyone else chime in (and I haven't looked at AUTOCAT), so I will attempt a foray. I think the short answer is, "it depends -- it depends on a cataloging community's application profile." And each cataloging community is going to have to think through these kinds of edge cases to its own satisfaction -- as the dynamics you report from the AUTOCAT responses indicate. I've gone through multiple drafts for myself to formulate this reply.

To expound though, I think the quandary goes back to the foundational conflict from cataloging practices arising from the description of the codex. We see this in the distinction between "sheet" as a unitary carrier of unmediated textual content and "volume" as a collective carrier of unmediated textual content. In no other context does this dynamic arise – we no longer have "side" as a unitary carrier of sound content, only the corresponding collective "audio disc" (which is so ingrained that we now perceive it as a unitary carrier); we do not have "microformat volume" as a collective carrier of textual content in microformat, only a variety of singleton microformat units.

For games, we are confronted with the conflict of how to parse the unitary vs collective nature for them of  three-dimensional content with an object carrier. This harkens back to the question you pose, what is the "unit"? Does it matter what kind of game is involved – board games vs dominoes vs backgammon vs cards? And speaking of card games, is the deck of cards the "game"; is it a unitary three-dimensional object (the deck, incidentally used for a variety of games) or is it a collection of two-dimensional non-projective graphics on card carriers (and does it matter whether the deck is used for play or divination; does it matter if it is cataloged in the context of its utility in those pursuits or as artwork)? Even farther afield, I fell down a rabbit-hole of how artists books might be conceived and treated but I'll abandon that line of thought.

To wrap things up and answer the original question, I might advocate at the moment, perhaps pragmatically in the avoidance of their own rabbit-hole, and notwithstanding the existence of multiple pieces as objects in their own right, that the "unit" of a game is the game in its entirety (that is, the "functional" approach). I can certainly see though how others can validly make other conclusions.

Hello,

The other day, we had a discussion about the element "mode of issuance" with respect to board games. If we don't think in terms of MARC coding, but only about the meaning of this element,  would a board game be a single unit or a multiple unit?

There was already a discussion on Autocat on this question, but I'd love to hear more opinions.

Note that in Germany, we still use the Original Toolkit's terminology (single unit, multipart monograph, serial, integrating resource) for this element, whereas in the Official Toolkit, there is now only "single unit" vs. "multiple unit" (with "multipart monograph" given as a synonym). But I don't think this makes a difference for my question.

The definition of multiple unit is: "A mode of issuance of a manifestation that is issued as a multipart physical unit or intangible multipart logical unit."
I am only interested in the first part, as we are not talking about digital objects.

I think that this definition refers only to the physical aspect, so that a board game (including a game board and, e.g., pieces, cards, dice, game instructions) should fall under "multiple unit". The parts are also equally important, so it's not a case of a predominant component and accompanying material.

But in the discussion on Autocat, there appeared a second view of looking at what is meant by "multipart". So we have two possible interpretations as how to decide between single unit and multiple unit:

1) Does the object *physically* consist of only one or of several parts?

2) Is the object *functionally* a single or a multipart unit?

For the second view, the main argument was that all the parts of a board game are needed for the play, and that it is sold and lent as a whole. However, there are other cases where objects which function only as a whole but are regarded as being multipart (like an audiobook on 3 CDs).

So I wonder which interpretation of the meaning of "mode of issuance" is correct? Is it about the physical or the functional aspect?

Thanks,
Heidrun

Dear John,

Many thanks for your thoughts on this matter and for chasing all those rabbits.

I had one more answer as a direct mail. This colleague thought that "single unit" would make much more sense, but that the RDA definition indeed seems to make a board game a "multiple unit". They also pointed out that RDA still doesn't work well work for many non-textual resources.

The more I think of the definition in RDA, the less sense it makes, especially the second part of the sentence: "an intangible multipart logical unit". This is so broad that it can, for example, easily cover an e-book version of a collection of short stories, which in print is issued as a single volume. But we still think of the e-book as something which is issued as a whole, a single unit.

The first part of the definition with the "multipart physical unit" seems more straightforward and implies that we just need to check whether there are several physical pieces. But this leads to odd results, e.g. in the case of a deck of cards. For practical reasons, the cards are separate from each other. But they work as a whole just as the pages of a book (which for practical reasons happen to be connected to each other).

I wonder if it would make sense to have not one, but two elements here - one for physical multipleness and one for functional multipleness?

Heidrun

------------------------------
Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Stuttgart Media University

Original Message:
Sent: Apr 13, 2026 12:19 PM
From: John Myers
Subject: Mode of issuance for (analog) board games,

Dear Heidrun,

I have not seen anyone else chime in (and I haven't looked at AUTOCAT), so I will attempt a foray. I think the short answer is, "it depends -- it depends on a cataloging community's application profile." And each cataloging community is going to have to think through these kinds of edge cases to its own satisfaction -- as the dynamics you report from the AUTOCAT responses indicate. I've gone through multiple drafts for myself to formulate this reply.

To expound though, I think the quandary goes back to the foundational conflict from cataloging practices arising from the description of the codex. We see this in the distinction between "sheet" as a unitary carrier of unmediated textual content and "volume" as a collective carrier of unmediated textual content. In no other context does this dynamic arise – we no longer have "side" as a unitary carrier of sound content, only the corresponding collective "audio disc" (which is so ingrained that we now perceive it as a unitary carrier); we do not have "microformat volume" as a collective carrier of textual content in microformat, only a variety of singleton microformat units.

For games, we are confronted with the conflict of how to parse the unitary vs collective nature for them of  three-dimensional content with an object carrier. This harkens back to the question you pose, what is the "unit"? Does it matter what kind of game is involved – board games vs dominoes vs backgammon vs cards? And speaking of card games, is the deck of cards the "game"; is it a unitary three-dimensional object (the deck, incidentally used for a variety of games) or is it a collection of two-dimensional non-projective graphics on card carriers (and does it matter whether the deck is used for play or divination; does it matter if it is cataloged in the context of its utility in those pursuits or as artwork)? Even farther afield, I fell down a rabbit-hole of how artists books might be conceived and treated but I'll abandon that line of thought.

To wrap things up and answer the original question, I might advocate at the moment, perhaps pragmatically in the avoidance of their own rabbit-hole, and notwithstanding the existence of multiple pieces as objects in their own right, that the "unit" of a game is the game in its entirety (that is, the "functional" approach). I can certainly see though how others can validly make other conclusions.

------------------------------
John Myers
Catalog & Metadata Librarian
Union College
He/Him/His

Original Message:
Sent: Apr 10, 2026 09:27 AM
From: Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Subject: Mode of issuance for (analog) board games,

Hello,

The other day, we had a discussion about the element "mode of issuance" with respect to board games. If we don't think in terms of MARC coding, but only about the meaning of this element,  would a board game be a single unit or a multiple unit?

There was already a discussion on Autocat on this question, but I'd love to hear more opinions.

Note that in Germany, we still use the Original Toolkit's terminology (single unit, multipart monograph, serial, integrating resource) for this element, whereas in the Official Toolkit, there is now only "single unit" vs. "multiple unit" (with "multipart monograph" given as a synonym). But I don't think this makes a difference for my question.

The definition of multiple unit is: "A mode of issuance of a manifestation that is issued as a multipart physical unit or intangible multipart logical unit."
I am only interested in the first part, as we are not talking about digital objects.

I think that this definition refers only to the physical aspect, so that a board game (including a game board and, e.g., pieces, cards, dice, game instructions) should fall under "multiple unit". The parts are also equally important, so it's not a case of a predominant component and accompanying material.

But in the discussion on Autocat, there appeared a second view of looking at what is meant by "multipart". So we have two possible interpretations as how to decide between single unit and multiple unit:

1) Does the object *physically* consist of only one or of several parts?

2) Is the object *functionally* a single or a multipart unit?

For the second view, the main argument was that all the parts of a board game are needed for the play, and that it is sold and lent as a whole. However, there are other cases where objects which function only as a whole but are regarded as being multipart (like an audiobook on 3 CDs).

So I wonder which interpretation of the meaning of "mode of issuance" is correct? Is it about the physical or the functional aspect?

Thanks,
Heidrun

------------------------------
Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Stuttgart Media University
------------------------------

Hello Heidrun and John,

I previously replied to Heidrun's email thread in AUTOCAT, but given the question John raises about "what is the 'unit'?", I'll mention here as well that "game" is a term in the RDA Carrier Extent Unit VES. This definition defines a game as singular unit of extent, but acknowledges that this unit is comprised of a set of objects. Either complicating or clarifying matters further, the NARDAC Spring update yesterday brought my attention to the proposals made at the January RSC meeting by the Extent Working Group, and this proposal in particular directly impacts the Carrier Extent Unit VES and slightly revises the "game" definition. That being said, preserving as much backwards compatibility as possible was mentioned as one of the aims of these proposals, so I imagine that continuing to consider a game as a single unit would be the ongoing preference, though there are definitely still lingering questions about kinds of games (e.g. collectible card games like Magic: The Gathering) that do not fit this definition as easily.

Regards,
------------------------------
Mackenzie Johnson
Cataloguing Librarian, University of Saskatchewan
Chair, GameRT Metadata Committee
He/Him/His

Original Message:
Sent: Apr 14, 2026 07:50 AM
From: Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Subject: Mode of issuance for (analog) board games,

Dear John,

Many thanks for your thoughts on this matter and for chasing all those rabbits.

I had one more answer as a direct mail. This colleague thought that "single unit" would make much more sense, but that the RDA definition indeed seems to make a board game a "multiple unit". They also pointed out that RDA still doesn't work well work for many non-textual resources.

The more I think of the definition in RDA, the less sense it makes, especially the second part of the sentence: "an intangible multipart logical unit". This is so broad that it can, for example, easily cover an e-book version of a collection of short stories, which in print is issued as a single volume. But we still think of the e-book as something which is issued as a whole, a single unit.

The first part of the definition with the "multipart physical unit" seems more straightforward and implies that we just need to check whether there are several physical pieces. But this leads to odd results, e.g. in the case of a deck of cards. For practical reasons, the cards are separate from each other. But they work as a whole just as the pages of a book (which for practical reasons happen to be connected to each other).

I wonder if it would make sense to have not one, but two elements here - one for physical multipleness and one for functional multipleness?

Heidrun

------------------------------
Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Stuttgart Media University

Original Message:
Sent: Apr 13, 2026 12:19 PM
From: John Myers
Subject: Mode of issuance for (analog) board games,

Dear Heidrun,

I have not seen anyone else chime in (and I haven't looked at AUTOCAT), so I will attempt a foray. I think the short answer is, "it depends -- it depends on a cataloging community's application profile." And each cataloging community is going to have to think through these kinds of edge cases to its own satisfaction -- as the dynamics you report from the AUTOCAT responses indicate. I've gone through multiple drafts for myself to formulate this reply.

To expound though, I think the quandary goes back to the foundational conflict from cataloging practices arising from the description of the codex. We see this in the distinction between "sheet" as a unitary carrier of unmediated textual content and "volume" as a collective carrier of unmediated textual content. In no other context does this dynamic arise – we no longer have "side" as a unitary carrier of sound content, only the corresponding collective "audio disc" (which is so ingrained that we now perceive it as a unitary carrier); we do not have "microformat volume" as a collective carrier of textual content in microformat, only a variety of singleton microformat units.

For games, we are confronted with the conflict of how to parse the unitary vs collective nature for them of  three-dimensional content with an object carrier. This harkens back to the question you pose, what is the "unit"? Does it matter what kind of game is involved – board games vs dominoes vs backgammon vs cards? And speaking of card games, is the deck of cards the "game"; is it a unitary three-dimensional object (the deck, incidentally used for a variety of games) or is it a collection of two-dimensional non-projective graphics on card carriers (and does it matter whether the deck is used for play or divination; does it matter if it is cataloged in the context of its utility in those pursuits or as artwork)? Even farther afield, I fell down a rabbit-hole of how artists books might be conceived and treated but I'll abandon that line of thought.

To wrap things up and answer the original question, I might advocate at the moment, perhaps pragmatically in the avoidance of their own rabbit-hole, and notwithstanding the existence of multiple pieces as objects in their own right, that the "unit" of a game is the game in its entirety (that is, the "functional" approach). I can certainly see though how others can validly make other conclusions.

------------------------------
John Myers
Catalog & Metadata Librarian
Union College
He/Him/His

Original Message:
Sent: Apr 10, 2026 09:27 AM
From: Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Subject: Mode of issuance for (analog) board games,

Hello,

The other day, we had a discussion about the element "mode of issuance" with respect to board games. If we don't think in terms of MARC coding, but only about the meaning of this element,  would a board game be a single unit or a multiple unit?

There was already a discussion on Autocat on this question, but I'd love to hear more opinions.

Note that in Germany, we still use the Original Toolkit's terminology (single unit, multipart monograph, serial, integrating resource) for this element, whereas in the Official Toolkit, there is now only "single unit" vs. "multiple unit" (with "multipart monograph" given as a synonym). But I don't think this makes a difference for my question.

The definition of multiple unit is: "A mode of issuance of a manifestation that is issued as a multipart physical unit or intangible multipart logical unit."
I am only interested in the first part, as we are not talking about digital objects.

I think that this definition refers only to the physical aspect, so that a board game (including a game board and, e.g., pieces, cards, dice, game instructions) should fall under "multiple unit". The parts are also equally important, so it's not a case of a predominant component and accompanying material.

But in the discussion on Autocat, there appeared a second view of looking at what is meant by "multipart". So we have two possible interpretations as how to decide between single unit and multiple unit:

1) Does the object *physically* consist of only one or of several parts?

2) Is the object *functionally* a single or a multipart unit?

For the second view, the main argument was that all the parts of a board game are needed for the play, and that it is sold and lent as a whole. However, there are other cases where objects which function only as a whole but are regarded as being multipart (like an audiobook on 3 CDs).

So I wonder which interpretation of the meaning of "mode of issuance" is correct? Is it about the physical or the functional aspect?

Thanks,
Heidrun

------------------------------
Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Stuttgart Media University
------------------------------

Hello,

The other day, we had a discussion about the element "mode of issuance" with respect to board games. If we don't think in terms of MARC coding, but only about the meaning of this element,  would a board game be a single unit or a multiple unit?

There was already a discussion on Autocat on this question, but I'd love to hear more opinions.

Note that in Germany, we still use the Original Toolkit's terminology (single unit, multipart monograph, serial, integrating resource) for this element, whereas in the Official Toolkit, there is now only "single unit" vs. "multiple unit" (with "multipart monograph" given as a synonym). But I don't think this makes a difference for my question.

The definition of multiple unit is: "A mode of issuance of a manifestation that is issued as a multipart physical unit or intangible multipart logical unit."
I am only interested in the first part, as we are not talking about digital objects.

I think that this definition refers only to the physical aspect, so that a board game (including a game board and, e.g., pieces, cards, dice, game instructions) should fall under "multiple unit". The parts are also equally important, so it's not a case of a predominant component and accompanying material.

But in the discussion on Autocat, there appeared a second view of looking at what is meant by "multipart". So we have two possible interpretations as how to decide between single unit and multiple unit:

1) Does the object *physically* consist of only one or of several parts?

2) Is the object *functionally* a single or a multipart unit?

For the second view, the main argument was that all the parts of a board game are needed for the play, and that it is sold and lent as a whole. However, there are other cases where objects which function only as a whole but are regarded as being multipart (like an audiobook on 3 CDs).

So I wonder which interpretation of the meaning of "mode of issuance" is correct? Is it about the physical or the functional aspect?

Thanks,
Heidrun