Mark said:
>If it's a matter of why 30-some years of GMDs and AACR2 practice never
>resulted in more elements being added to the "must have" pile irrespective
>of levels of description, I can't say.
Particularly after Jean Riddle Weihs' study which showed the value of
the GMD to librarians and patrons. Why JSC opted to ignore that
valuable study done by our preeminent nonbook catalogue,r I've no
idea.
Let's hope recording "large print" will be a common practice, core or
not, as it was with AACR2.
I agree with Mark that 300 is better than 340 for this data, not only
because that may place it in brief display, but because 340 is often
not mapped for display at all.
Daniel Paradis said:
>GMD was not even required at the first level of description in AACR2
>(see 1.0D1) so how could AACR2 be superior to RDA in this respect?
I am not aware of any major library having done AACR2 level one, as
some are now doing RDA core. I don't recall ever deriving an AACR2
record lacking this data, as we are now seeing RDA ones. Perhaps we
were more pragmatic and less rule bound in applying AACR2 than RDA?
Did we find AACR2 less intimidating that RDA?
Whether the RDA rules are inferior or not, many RDA records certainly
*are*, and not only for large print. (The two rules are equally
pathetic for equipment). I'm not aware of anything in AACR2 as
misleading as "computer" as a media type, nor as unintelligible as
some of the media content phrases; cf. "cartographic three dimensional
form" for "globe"; at least I assume that i what it means; will
patrons?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
