I check the mapping of RDA instruction rules with MARC fields in RDA Toolkit. 3.13 Font size is mapped to $a of 300 fields, $n of 340 fields, and 500 fields. So I assume that we can record "Large print" in either of the three fields depending on cases and needs.
Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Adam L. Schiff <asch...@u.washington.edu>wrote: > 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<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:rd...@listserv.lac-**BAC.GC.CA <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:mac@slc.**bc.ca <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/> >> >> -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
