Possible ways of going about this... see notes below for issues.
- Bibliographic Format
- See "Correct bibliographic format for kits" (1998) in AUTOCAT Archives for discussion
The mixed materials workform is for archival collections that consist of multiple types of materials, e.g. papers, photographs, and sound recordings, where the purpose is not instructional.
OCLC and MARC documentation are quite clear that kits (which are defined as primarily intended for instructional purposes) are still to be cataloged on the visual materials workform. Peters. (2005). Re: "Kit" workforms. AUTOCAT.
- Storage of items
- "Any new materials are cataloged as new items using OCLC and we adapt for the DDC since educational institutions use DDC and it is felt that future teachers need to be able to locate materials too. The collection in integrated as far as media goes, save the Kits or what the check-out folks call "Toys". They are in a locked closet in that off often students were using them for babysitting items for their own children and they were getting worn." Dalman. 1996. Re: Cataloging policies / curriculum lab materials,
Thanks to all seven who responded to my query about processing and shelving
large juvenile kits. I will print the responses out and forward them to my
colleague. What follows is a brief summary of the responses:
- Five respondents indicated that they used boxes to house and shelve juvenile
kits. Two mentioned Demco boxes by name, while one indicated that his/her
institution now purchases custom-made boxes from a local packaging company.
- Two respondents use plastic hanger bags, while one mentioned cloth bags.
- One respondent uses expandable file folders with velcro locks for some kits.
- One respondent uses the original containers, if appropriate.
In my view, the most original method of storing kits came from a public
librarian in Oregon who uses inexpensive colored backpacks, with luggage tags
for barcodes. She expressed satisfaction with her method of handling this
awkward format. As is obvious from the arithmetic of the above, several respondents used two
methods for housing kits, depending on the size and nature of the kit. Three respondents indicated that they include a contents note on or in the
container, or in the online holdings record, and that each kit returned is
checked for completeness. One respondent indicated that any CD-ROMs associated with a kit are kept
behind the circ desk, and that patrons checking out the kit in question must
pick up the disc there. One respondent noted the problem of breaking handles on the plastic bags. Bearden. 1995. Processing juvenile kits. AUTOCAT.
- Toys, games, puppets
- Determining publication date
- Determining publication date for locally constructed kits
- I would use the date the kits were put together since that is when the intellectual work of selecting the materials was done. The kit didn't exist before then, just as a collection of essays didn't exist as a collection until they were published together. McCoy. (2009). Re: Cataloging locally created kits. AUTOCAT.
- Holdings information
Our library has recently begun using the MARC Holdings Format. I am cataloging a kit where none of the components is the predominant one. Would I arbitrarily pick one as the "basic bibliographic unit" and enter holdings information in 853/863 fields, then enter holdings information for the other components as "supplementary materials" in 854/864 fields?
The format doesn't give a lot of guidance for kits or for non-serial resources in general. Your idea is certainly one approach that could be taken, and using paired fields is preferred for items that have sequential designations. You could also use an 866 field to put everything in one statement. Langford and Hostage. (2005). Re: MARC Holdings for kits. AUTOCAT.
- Multiple 300s
- See "Multiple 300s" (1996) in AUTOCAT Archives for discussion
Cataloging locally created kits
"Here is a brief summary of my harvesting: most of the libraries only put their records of this type in their local database; but at least one library does put such records in OCLC. One library leaves out 260 field altogether, others put their library in 260 with a date on which the kit was assembled, and still others use the imprint information from the first book within the
kit. Since an artificial kit is "locally produced", and is not "published", a subfield |c only in 260 is recommended unless the whole 260 field is mandatory in a local system." Lin. (2001). RE: Cataloging "artificial" kits. AUTOCAT.
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:51:46 -0700
Subject: Re: Cataloging a kit Comments:
In article <754E582D83AACF40AA449E308B5D101813DF1ECB@APP-EXCHANGEVS2.city.arl>, you wrote:
>I am cataloging a Spanish language kit and I could really use some help.
050 4 $aPN2075$b.T426 2000
082 4 $a372.66
245 00 $aTeatro primaria$h[kit].
260 $a[Leon-La-Coruna, Spain] :$bEditorial Everest,S.A.,$c[2000?]
300 $a1 kit (various pieces) :$c51 x 28 x 28 cm. [or whatever the 3rd dimension is]
500 $aIncludes 8 books; several cardboard pieces for building a stage; 3 cardboard cut-out figures; 12 cards on how to make props, costumes and apply stage makeup; 6 "claves para la puesta en escena" for various plays; and 1 folded sheet of stencils.
505 1 $a <Give 8 books; indicator "1" means partial contents>
546 $aText in Spanish.
650 0 $aTheater$xStudy and teaching (Primary).
7XX for 8 books
I haven't divided by country, since I assume it will be used with Hispanics in your area.
J. McRee (Mac) Elrod
gmane archive is incomplete :c( earliest entries are from 2007 (as far as I can tell) and are incomplete (cannot find Mac's email above). Whenever I have to go into the original archives, I am citing the email source using the following format: AuthorLastName. (year of publication). Title of email. Listserv Name.Dated information!
Autocat goes back to 1990-ish. A lot has changed since then. Listserv information is conflicting, and what may have been correct back in 1998 may not be in 2009. How should this issue about dated information be addressed?
- Page disclaimer- "Hey, we're just the messengers, use this info at your own risk", "AS IS, no guarantees in currency of information", etc.
- On top of page, list or link to the appropriate sections of authoritative sources (AACR2r, MARC21 pages, LCRI, etc.)
- Tell people to fix it if they find bad info! This is a wiki, after all...
Some threads have long discussions that are not relatively easy to summarize (due to amount of information, disagreements, varying viewpoints, etc.). I have listed the title and date of the thread for these threads... any other suggestions?