I believe in the best of worlds, large print would now only be recorded in
an RDA record in 340 $n. That said, in the RDA Appendix with MARC
mappings, font size is mapped to both 300 $a and 340 $n.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013, Arakawa, Steven wrote:
In the original question, it isn't clear where (Large print) would be entered
in MARC 300. In AACR2 MARC records, it is entered in 300 $a per 2.5B23, but
there isn't a corresponding instruction in RDA. In RDA extent (300 $a) is
limited to the number of units and subunits (3.4.1.1). Since Large print is not
a subunit but a font size, how would including it as part of the extent (300
$a) be justified in RDA? Although the RDA Toolkit has a link from AACR2 2.5B23
to RDA 3.13.1.3, the instruction does not specify where to enter the Large
Print information. Some MARC alternatives might be MARC 500 and/or 340. Maybe
also 300 $b?
Is there a similar impact on AACR2 2.5B22?
Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation
Catalog & Metada Services
Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University
P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240
(203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu<mailto:steven.arak...@yale.edu>
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of M. E.
Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2013 4:35 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording (large print)
J. McRee Elrod <m...@slc.bc.ca<mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca>> wrote:
What is core for RDA, and what is core for patron needs, are two
*very* different things! AACR2 had a qualified GMD: "text (large
print)" which worked very well. This is but one example of AACR2's
superiority over RDA in terms of meeting patron needs, as opposed to
conforming to theory.
To be fair, AACR2's GMDs are marked as optional and don't appear at all under
1.0D's first level of description (which is on par with RDA's core
cataloging--RDA for the most part follows in AACR2's footsteps).
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.
--
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex
<http://www.minitex.umn.edu/>
