Compiled by Jay Weitz

There are Musicals and Then There are Musicals

Question: Please advise on when to use “Musicals” and when to use “Motion picture music” as a subject heading. Specifically, when something that walks and quacks like a musical is a film. I've always used “Musicals” for live, staged productions where the songs are integral to or at least relate to the plot, and “Motion picture music” for the (usually) largely instrumental "background" music of a movie. Since many staged musicals are later made into movies (think The Sound of Music ), I used “Musicals” also for musicals-as-movies, because it seemed reasonable to keep the two versions together. But now I wonder if that is correct. The scope notes in the authority records for “Musicals” and “Motion picture music” haven't resolved it for me.

Answer: "Musicals" (topical/sh85089018) is assigned to "music for theatrical productions consisting of musical numbers (songs, ensembles, and dances) integrated into a dramatic framework." Taking that literally, it seems to exclude film versions of stage musicals. "Musical films" (topical/sh85088121; genre/sh2007025016) would cover the film musicals, regardless of whether they are adaptations of stage musicals (such as Chicago ) or are composed for the screen (such as State Fair , later transformed into a stage musical). "Filmed musicals" (genre/sh2008025647) covers filmed performances of live stage musicals. "Motion picture music" (topical/sh85088056) covers "musical works composed for sound films or performed on soundtracks." Broadly speaking, of course, that would include any musical film, but I believe the intention is limited to what we would ordinarily consider (and which one of the 450s says directly) "Background music for motion pictures." Additional perspectives were contributed by Sharon McKinley of the Library of Congress (writing personally only and not representing official LC policy):

As for musicals and movies, if it walks and quacks like a musical, it is, to my mind....a musical! The musical/film headings are confusing, overlap, and are not completely analogous. My personal, flawed, and stripped-down understanding: The term “Musical” applies to the structure of a dramatic work. It also applies to the music from that work. A motion picture is (to me) a physical format which can have one or more of any number of structures, including that of a musical; the music that is written for a film is motion picture music. If you have a score or sound recording for music from a motion picture, the first heading should be “Motion picture music.” Secondarily, if the dramatic work in question is a musical, I would double the headings and apply “Musicals” as well, even though they both have the broader heading “Dramatic music.” I would NOT worry about whether the work was originally conceived as a motion picture (such as State fair) or as a stage show (Annie). I find the subject authority records using the word "theatrical" a bit confusing, because to me that word implies a stage show. But now that I think of it, they talk about the theatrical release of motion pictures, so maybe I'm just thinking like a musician instead of as a filmgoer. See LCCN 2002557657 for an example of a recording of a musical turned into a movie, with the doubled headings. I'm sure we can find examples all over the lot, but I like this one. There are other headings associated with musicals/movies:

“Musical films” (Use for: Film musicals; you might in theory use THIS on State fair, but I wouldn't! It has been used sketchily over the years. It seems to be more for books ABOUT them and has a PN number on the record).

“Filmed musicals” (a form/genre heading for a filmed stage performance; no bibs in LC but there are a small number in OCLC, used in exactly that way).

It's obvious that this is a convoluted bunch of headings, and they've been applied in different ways. I personally think you're doing the user a favor by doubling the headings, but others may think more literally.

Confusion is understandable among catalogers, let alone library users.

<=========><><><>O<><><> < =========>

Born-Digital PDFs

Question: We were wondering how to catalog PDF files that were created from MS Word documents, and never existed in print format. I'm inclined to catalog them as "print" and add a 007 field plus a note(s) - 500, 533, 535? - stating their origin, which would probably be enough for most if not all patrons, but I do have a feeling that there may be more to it than that. I'd appreciate any help.

Answer: A born-digital textual resource such as this would be cataloged as any other textual resource, Type "a". Include fields 006 and 007 for the electronic resource aspect. The question of whether a document converted from Microsoft Word into a PDF file qualifies as a reproduction in an AACR2/LCRI 1.11A sense is an interesting one. Given the considerable leeway that LCRI 1.11A and its first footnote allow, though, I'd lean in the direction of not including field 533, describing the PDF itself in the body of the record, and explaining the origin simply in a 500 note. If, however, there is some special circumstance or issue of rights, provenance, or the like that needs to be accounted for, you might want to document the fact of the conversion/reproduction through the 260/533 combination, as you would for other reproductions when following LCRI 1.11A.

<=========><><><>O<><><> < =========>

To $b or Not to $b

Question: I'm cataloging a kit and need some advice. The kit is composed of 3 DVDs, 5 CD-ROMs, 1 CD, and 1 information sheet and I'm struggling with the physical description, specifically the subfield $b. If I do one 300 field, do I put anything in the subfield $b?

Answer: If you are following AACR2 1.10C2a -- and it sounds as though you are -- you would not ordinarily include a subfield $b in the single 300 field. If there is a container, you could note that and its dimensions in the subfield $c. Any details of the various components of the kit that need to be detailed (some of which might be enumerated in subfield $b under other circumstances) can be mentioned in notes.

<=========><><><>O<><><> < =========>

A Model “Model”

Question: I am trying to figure out the GMD for this "motorized solar system and planetarium" that I am trying to catalog. Previous versions have been cataloged in the past as a “[kit]”, but I am having an indecisive day. I am currently agonizing whether I should go with the flow and catalog it as a kit, or if it is really a model. When you put it together, it is a model of the solar system. There is also a supplementary guide and activity sheet (which explain Pluto's new status). And the "sun" lights up, so if you put the "star dome" (a plastic cover with the constellations printed on it) over the sun, it projects the constellations onto the ceiling; thus, the planetarium effect. Which would you choose, model or kit?

Answer: Although in common usage, we may call something such as this, which needs to be assembled, a "kit," that does not square with the AACR2 definition:

Kit. 1. An item containing two or more categories of material, no one of which is identifiable as the predominant constituent of the item; also designated “multimedia item” (q.v.). 2. A single-medium package of textual material (e.g., a “press kit,” a set of printed test materials, an assemblage of printed materials published under the name “Jackdaw”).

"Realia" ("An artefact or a naturally occurring entity, as opposed to a replica") would seem also not to fit, because this thing is in fact a replica of the solar system. As you describe this item, it strikes me as fitting the AACR2 definition of "model": "A three-dimensional representation of a real thing". That is the GMD I would suggest.

<=========><><><>O<><><> < =========>

Not Your Typical Box of Stuff

Question: As long as we're on this topic, my next tricky thing to catalog is a plastic box filled with "stuff" that you can use to demonstrate static electricity. (For example: balloons, cloth, electro-bead tubes, pith balls with cords, acrylic rods, and rubber rods.) No instructions, but a box of this stuff. (Some company puts this together and sells it to libraries/teachers. The label says "Static Electricity Supply Set.") I am thinking that the GMD for this is a [kit]. However, I'm looking at the AACR2 definition of a kit and trying to decide if by "An item containing two or more categories of material, no one of which is identifiable as the predominant constituent of the item" they mean this sort of "bunch of stuff thrown together in a box." By "categories of material," do they mean more than one material in the general sense (such as balloons, cloth, electro-bead tubes, etc.), or do they mean two or more formal cataloging formats, like if there were a sound recording, a bag of balloons, and a book together? I am agonizing between [kit] and [realia] on this one.

Answer: This strikes me as a kit. The AACR2 definitions of both "kit" and "multimedia item" (Appendix D) contain the phrase "two or more categories of material" (emphasis mine). Perhaps I read too much into the choice of that particular word in this context, but my sense is that "categories" is meant to be more vague than the more usual AACR2 use of the phrase " types of material" (again, emphasis mine) when referring to the divisions of materials in Chapters 2 through 10 (see AACR2 0.23, for instance). And I don't think it is entirely a coincidence that the (roughly) corresponding MARC 21 division is Leader/06 "Type of Record." It feels to me that "categories" was intended to include our traditional books, scores, sound recordings, maps, etc., divisions, but also to be vague enough to include such miscellaneous collections as your "Static Electricity Supply Set."

<=========><><><>O<><><> < =========>

Knotty or Nutty? You Decide

Question: Leaping into the theoretical (or perhaps ridiculous) realm, if I had a box of buttons (I am thinking of my grandma's old tin of a variety of buttons), would this be considered [realia] since there is only one category of material? Or would it be considered a [kit] since there is more than one type of button in the box?

Answer: The subtleties of such choices on a cataloger's part are open to all sorts (types? categories?) of interpretation. Especially in the realm of things we don't usually think of as bibliographic entities, the cataloging rules and the bibliographic formats become less and less helpful, less and less useful, and much more difficult to decipher in any way that is meaningful to the things we may be trying to describe. At least since AACR2, and certainly moving toward RDA, our cataloging rules purport to be able to cover pretty much anything you'd ever want (or be forced) to catalog. That isn't to say that everything would be satisfyingly described, or meaningfully coded. During the course of this thread (how appropriate, given that we've come down to talking about buttons) on the OLAC Discussion List, we've read contrary interpretations from two of Visual Materials cataloging's most respected minds, Nancy Olson (who considered the "motorized solar system and planetarium" a kit) and Kelley McGrath (who considered it realia). So please remember that just because stupid little me says it, that doesn't mean it's correct. All that as a preface to my guess that a tin full of buttons should be cataloged as "realia". These are real buttons, not replicas. And unlike the earlier example of the box full of miscellaneous things that could be used to demonstrate static electricity, the buttons are all a single category of material. That is, buttons. (If you next ask about your grandmother's box that contains both buttons AND safety pins, I fear that my head might explode.) Alternative interpretations are certainly possible, but for me, that about sews it up.

<=========><><><>O<><><> < =========>

The Name is Format, MARC Format

Question: The 007 has always been a question for me. I thought that anything that was not paper pretty much needed an 007: maps, videos, electronic resources, sound recordings, etc. And I thought most anything that fell into this Visual Materials realm, including realia, kits, and models, also needed, in fact required, field 007. Can you clarify this?

Answer: The "007 Introduction" of Bibliographic Formats and Standards says which 007 fields OCLC has implemented and how they should be used. MARC 21 has additionally defined 007 fields for kits, notated music, text, and unspecified, but OCLC has chosen not to implement them (at least so far) because they convey no useful information as far as we are concerned. In OCLC, some Visual Materials need 007 fields (videorecordings, motion pictures, projected graphics, nonprojected graphics) but some don't (kits, most three-dimensional artifacts and realia). Some things on paper need 007s (maps, nonprojected graphics) and some don't (most books).

<=========><><><>O<><><> < =========>

The New Subfield $j in Field 041

Question: When reading the 041 information from Technical Bulletin 257, I am not sure if the languages of subtitles or captions will be put in subfield $j if those same languages already appear in subfield $a. Can someone clarify for me?

Answer: In the newly defined subfield $j for "Language Code of Subtitles or Captions" in field 041, you may repeat a Language Code that already appears in subfield $a. As a matter of fact, you may now also do the same in the subfield $b, which has been more narrowly redefined as "Language Code of Summary or Abstract." The subfield $b definition now reads (awkwardly), in part: "For textual resources, record the language of the summary regardless if it is the same or different from the language recorded in subfield $a." In the case of both subfields, you are now able to more accurately code for the languages that are reflected in a cataloged resource.

<=========><><><>O<><><> < =========>

Audio Format Wars: DVD-Audio Versus CD

Question: I have a couple of questions related to a set that consists of one DVD and one accompanying compact disc. The record on OCLC has DtSt: p and Dates: 2009, 1976. As far as we can tell, the contents of the DVD appear exactly the same as when it was first broadcast on television in 1976. However, due to the addition of the CD (copyright 2009), should the DtSt be coded "s" with a single date of 2009? Also, the packaging refers to the accompanying compact disc as a "CD." However, the publisher Web site describes it as a "DVD." We are wondering if this is sufficient evidence to justify editing the record to reflect that it is a DVD-audio disc? I'm not very familiar with DVD-Audio, and the OLAC DVD guide and the paper it linked to aren't very clear on how to identify this format. I tried to play the disc in my CD player and found it worked just fine. If it were a DVD-Audio, would it not be able to play on standard CD players?

Answer: Seems to me that the addition of the CD and the reissuing of the two discs as a package mean that DtSt should be coded "s" with the single date. Concerning the identification of the audio format, evidence found on the resource in hand strikes me as usually more reliable than that found on a publisher's Web site. I don't have a lot of experience with DVD-Audio, either, but my understanding is that they commonly do not play on standard CD players. In fact, only DVD-Video players that are specially manufactured to be compatible with DVD-Audio, and dedicated DVD-Audio players will play the discs, as far as I understand. Most DVD-Audio discs will be explicitly identified as such, with a logo that looks similar to the DVD-Video logo except that where the DVD-Video logo says "video" at the bottom, the DVD-Audio logo says "audio", logically enough.

Likewise, many audio CDs will have the "Compact Disc Digital Audio" logo somewhere on the label or accompanying material (or in many cases, embossed in the plastic jewel case on the inside).

If none of this helps you positively identify the format of the audio disc, you could include a note about the ambiguity and the sources of the contradictory information, and note that the disc does seem to play in a standard CD player. If you have DVD equipment to test it out on, you could also try that for good measure.

<=========><><><>O<><><> < =========>

That Which is Not Forbidden is Allowed

Question: In sound recording cataloging, it is the practice, explicitly stated in the MARC format, to record the language codes for summaries of the vocal works contained in the accompanying material (e.g. the synopsis of an opera) in 041 subfield $b. DVDs of operas often contain synopses as well, either as part of the printed accompanying material or sometimes as narrated text over images of the production on the DVD itself. Now that languages of subtitles and captions are coded in subfield $j and that subfield $b is available to record languages of summaries for videorecordings, would it be correct to use subfield $b to record the languages of such synopses? The fact that the MARC 21 format seems to restrict the use of subfield $b to textual resources and sound recordings (despite format integration) makes me doubt whether it would be appropriate.

Answer: Although MARC 21 has instructions for the use of field 041 subfield $b specifically for textual materials and music, that is not intended to restrict its use only to those types of materials. You may feel free to use subfield $b for any material that includes a summary or abstract.

<=========><><><>O<><><> < =========>

DVD Publishers and Dates

Question: Finding publisher information on DVDs, videos, and the like has always given me headaches, and I am working on one now that is problematic for me. On the DVD label, at the top, it says WaterART Fitness; at the bottom of the disc is a copyright statement saying: “c WaterART Fitness International 2004.” On the DVD box, I learn that WaterART Fitness International is “a Division of Body Check Inc.” Just given that information, I would select WaterART Fitness as the publisher. However, the chief source of information for DVDs is the film itself, and at the very end of the credits it has “Body Check Inc. copyright 2003.” Body Check is also listed as a producer. So which of these entities should I choose for the publisher, and what should I put for the publication date, 2003 or 2004?

Answer: Identifying publishers and dates for videos can indeed be a headache. One thing to keep in mind is that, although "the item itself (e.g., the title frames)" is the chief source of information listed first in AACR2 7.0B1, publishers and dates that appear in title frames and credits may or may not represent the published manifestation that you have in hand. In the spirit of 1.0A3, the disc label of a DVD may be the more useful chief source: "If the sources of information bear different dates of publication, distribution, etc., prefer the source with the later date." Regarding the choice of publisher name, LCRI 1.4D4 says in part, "If the chief source has on it a specific firm name and a statement about associated companies or a parent organization appears elsewhere in the item, do not include these associated companies or their places in the imprint." All of this leads me to suggest "WaterART Fitness" as the publisher and 2004 as the publication date of the DVD. If "Body Check" is further listed as a producer, it may be appropriate to include it in the 245 subfield $c or a 508 note.

<=========><><><>O<><><> < =========>

Free Floating Volume Numbers

Question: I have about a dozen or more similar videos with different titles. Each title is followed, on the DVD label and on the container, with a volume number, but it is not present when I watch the DVD. The closest thing I can find to a series statement is on the disc label, which says “Fundamentals Program” but I don't think that the volume number on the discs applies to that because I have two Volume 2s. The volume numbers just seem to be floating there, unattached to anything. Can you help with this?

Answer: If you have determined that the mysterious volume numbers are truly not associated with anything, you could record them in a simple quoted note (with the source, if that's appropriate). Just because such designations do not appear in the title frames does not mean that they cannot legitimately belong to the DVD manifestation you have in hand, however. For instance, a film originally released theatrically in a single part could be divided up into separate discs in its DVD publication, a division that may or may not be reflected in title frames.

<=========><><><>O<><><> < =========>

When a DVD is Not Your PAL

Question: We are receiving some a lot of Chinese DVD titles that have “Region 6” and PAL on the back cover. However, we've tested them and they do play here. Apparently the distributors change out the discs for the proper format, but just use the same covers. What do we do about this? Specifically, do we go ahead and match to the Region 6 PAL records since that is what our covers say? I'm thinking we should not use the Region 6 PAL record if that is not what these truly are. I'm thinking we should create a new record, enter the Region 6 PAL but then do the [i.e. DVD] for the inaccuracy, but in all honesty I'm not 100% sure. What would you suggest?

Answer: If the region and/or the color broadcast system is different, separate records are justified. Because the data in a 538 note can come from anywhere and are not transcribed from the resource, per se, I would suggest something along these lines:

538 DVD; NTSC; Region 1 (container erroneously states PAL, Region 6).

That puts things succinctly and clearly, but if you can think of a better way, that would be OK, too.

<=========><><><>O<><><> < =========>

Software Versions

Question: My library recently purchased a software package called Stat/Transfer. You can either purchase a physical copy of the software, or download it and purchase a license (single or multiple users). The latest version available is version 10. We went with the download option. My question is, should I catalog this as a continuing electronic resource (since new updates will become available, and will probably be downloadable), or as a computer file just for version 10 (even though I don't have a physical copy of the software in my hand and therefore no CD-ROMs, etc.)? And since I don't actually have the discs in-hand, how to I handle the 300 (physical description) field? Do I just leave it out and put "available for download at..." in a 500 note?

Answer: Electronic resources that are presented as discrete versions, particularly discretely numbered versions, may be cataloged as monographs, rather than as continuing resources. Consider the version number to be an edition statement. This would apply to both tangible and remote electronic resources. AACR2 allows you options on the "physical" description of remote access electronic resources, beginning at 9.5A1b and subsequently at the rules and LCRIs referred to from there. You may omit the 300 field and describe the software in notes or you may follow the option at 9.5B3 and use field 300 to describe the software, probably using a "term in common usage" that is appropriate to the file in question.

<=========><><><>O<><><> < =========>

Credits Where Credits are Due

Question: I am working on a DVD and am once again reminded of all the various jobs that are listed at the end. Which ones are important to code, and where do you put them? I have chosen the people that I think are most likely to need to be mentioned in this particular video, they include: executive producers, associate producer, writers, editor, videographers, narrator, series manager. Here's my first stab at this:

511 0 Narrator, Julie Anchor.

508 Executive producers, Julie Braly, Krista Inchausti ; associate producer, Jonah Arquelevich ; writers, Andrew C. Sullivan, Katie Thatcher ; editor, Ken Nicholson ; videographers, John Paussa, Mark Polly, Ruben Gibson ; series manager, Nynthia Bates.

Is there anyone in there that you would not include? Are we supposed to add into the statement of responsibility the big people (producer, director, animator) even when they do not appear in the opening slides (in this case they all come in the end credits)? Also, there seem to be various degrees attached to jobs: executive, associate, assistant. Any guidance on which of these to leave in or out?

Answer: Here's a summary of what I've been teaching in my video cataloging workshops, based on AACR2, the LCRIs, and two cancelled LCRIs that remain useful supplements to the AACR2 rules that (supposedly) replaced them. AACR2 7.1F1 currently says to include in the statement of responsibility those "... with a major role in creating a film (e.g., as producer, director, animator) ...." LCRI 7.1F1, which was cancelled in 2000 when 7.1F1 proper was revised, said in part to include here entities that had "some degree of overall responsibility" and that "others who are responsible for only one segment or one aspect of the work" should be in notes (508 field), but to be liberal in making exceptions. (Notable exceptions would be composers and lyricists/librettists for musical films and operas, animators for animated films, choreographers for films that feature dance, and so on.) AACR2 7.7B6 says in part: "List persons (other than the cast) who have contributed to the artistic and/or technical production of a motion picture or videorecording and who are not named in the statements of responsibility (see 7.1F). Do not include the names of assistants, associates, etc., or any other persons making only a minor contribution." The cancelled LCRI 7.7B6 said to include such roles as photographers, camera people, cinematographers, animators, artists, illustrators, film editors, narrators/voices, music, consultants, advisers, when appropriate. It furthermore said NOT to include "assistants or associates, production supervisors or coordinators, project or executive editors, technical advisers or consultants, audio or sound engineers, writers of discussion or program, other persons or bodies making only a minor or purely technical contribution." Unlike the more-or-less relatively standardized book title page, there's absolutely no standardization for film credits (at least in a cataloging sense; there are Hollywood traditions, trade union rules, and the like). Many films don't have title frames at all and leave credits to the end. Other films scatter opening credits through the first few minutes of the production or even longer. So I think we need to be fairly broad in interpreting the first choice for "chief source of information" when AACR2 says "the item itself (e.g., the title frames)" to include any opening, scattered, and closing credits when that makes sense and gives us the information we need. My inclination is to include only the biggies (director, screenwriter, and producer) in 245 subfield $c, with obvious exceptions when we're dealing with musical films (composer, librettist, lyricist, choreographer, and so on), animated films, and other special cases where another major "overall" responsibility presents itself. In field 508 credits, one has even wider latitude about what information to include because "any source" is the prescribed source of information. The standard list of inclusions would be those such as cinematographer, editor, composer (when music is not the chief focus), and the like. Use your judgment about placement of these credits according to the kind of film you're cataloging and your users and their needs. In most cases, I'd suggest omitting the "qualified" credits (assistant, associate, executive, etc.) except when some prominent name is listed as something like "executive producer" or "so-and-so presents" (when you will probably want to include them in 245 subfield $c, but use judgment).

<=========><><><>O<><><> < =========>

Versions of Remote Electronic Resources, Stat

Question: My library recently purchased a software package called Stat/Transfer . You can either purchase a physical copy of the software, or download it and purchase a license (single or multiple users). The latest version available is version 10. We went with the download option. My question is, should I catalog this as a continuing electronic resource (since new updates will become available, and will probably be downloadable), or as a computer file just for version 10 (even though I don't have a physical copy of the software in my hand and therefore no CD-ROMs, etc.)? And since I don't actually have the discs in-hand, how do I handle the 300 (physical description) field? Do I just leave it out and put "available for download at..." in a 500 note?

Answer: Electronic resources that are presented as discrete versions, particularly discretely numbered versions, may be cataloged as monographs, rather than as continuing resources. Consider the version number to be an edition statement. This would apply to both tangible and remote electronic resources. Regarding the 300 field, AACR2 allows you options on the "physical" description of remote access electronic resources, beginning at 9.5A1b and subsequently at the rules and LCRIs referred to from there. You may omit the 300 field and describe the software in notes or you may follow the option at 9.5B3 and use field 300 to describe the software, probably using a "term in common usage" that is appropriate to the file in question.

<=========><><><>O<><><> < =========>

Cataloging MP3s on a Disc

Question: I'm trying to determine if the tag line in MP3s for “Compact disc, MP3 format” is a 538 or a 500. I thought it was 538.

Answer: You should follow the recommendations of LC's "New Sound Recording Formats" document for MP3 files. In your case of MP3 files (presumably) on a CD-ROM, use a standard Computer File 007 as you would for other CD-ROMs; the GMD "[electronic resource]"; describe the CD-ROM in the 300 subfield $a as you usually would (either as "1 computer optical disc" or as "1 CD-ROM", depending upon your institution's choices of AACR2 9.5B1 options); 300 subfield $b "digital, MP3 file"; and in subfield $c, the dimensions of the CD-ROM (4 3/4 in.). Use a 538 note if the resource specifies particular playback equipment or other system requirements.

<=========><><><>O<><><> < =========>

The Over-Thinking Game

Question: I am trying to figure out the GMD for this "walk-on number line" that I am trying to catalog. Previous versions have been cataloged in the past as [kit], [game], [model], and [realia]. It is basically two sheets of vinyl with numbers on it. You put them together on the floor for a child to walk on, and somehow this is supposed to help the child learn his or her numbers from 0-20. Here's an example of said walk-on number line: http://www.delta-education.com/productdetail.aspx?Collection=N&prodID=3239&menuID =. I am thinking that it is not a kit, because there is not more than one type of material. I do not think it's a game, because there are no instructions for it to be a game, although I guess one could make a game out of it. I don't think it's a model, because it's not like a big ruler or something. So by the process of elimination, I wavering with realia. The AACR2R definition of realia is: "An artefact or a naturally occurring entity, as opposed to a replica." I usually think of realia as three-dimensional, which is bugging me because this is not three-dimensional (unless it is rolled up). While the walk -on number line does not strike me as an artifact, and is certainly not a naturally occurring object, I'm not coming up with a better solution at the moment. Should I be thinking, instead, along the lines of a two-dimensional non-projectable graphic (like a poster or a chart)? Which would you choose?

Answer: As someone suggested, we might be over-thinking this, but after initially leaning toward “realia,” I'm beginning to over-think, too. Let's look at the AACR2 definitions of all of the proposed GMDs.

“Kit” has two definitions. The first says, “An item containing two or more categories of material, no one of which is identifiable as the predominant constituent of the item.” You are correct that this does not fit because we don't have multiple categories of material. The second definition calls for “A single-medium package of textual material,” and the numerals aside, I don't think this can be construed as textual.

“Model”: “A three-dimensional representation of a real thing,” seems unlikely because it's simply a real thing, not a representation of something else, as you describe it.

The definition of "chart" reads, "An opaque sheet that exhibits data in graphic or tabular form (e.g., a wall chart)." We could consider the display of the numbers from zero to twenty as "data," but that seems like a huge stretch to me.

"Realia" is defined as "An artefact or a naturally occurring entity, as opposed to a replica." AACR2 further defines "artefact" as "Any object made or modified by one or more persons," and the object you describe certainly does fit that definition as a human-made object.

Finally, you did state that there were no instructions by which to make this into a game. But let's look again more closely at the AACR2 definition of "game": "An item or set of materials designed for play according to prescribed or implicit rules and intended for recreation or instruction " (emphases mine). For a child at the age of learning to count, one could argue that anything oriented in that direction could be considered (or turned into) a game. Which would mean that this number line actually does constitute "An item ... designed for play according to ... implicit rules and intended for ... instruction."

So perhaps the choice of a GMD is a tossup in the sense that either “realia” or “game” can be justified by reference to AACR2. The GMD "realia" would seem to emphasize the object-ness of this thing and the GMD "game" would seem to emphasize the playful/instructional aspect. For users, the latter feels like it makes more sense, so I am changing my answer and going with "game." That was fun.