>>Whether or not it has an edition statement, you could (would be >>advised to) >add Font Size (3.13) "large print", in either the 300$a >>or 340$n or both
>True. But in the absence of a GMD, or a large print icon, a 250 large >print edition statement (transcribed or supplied) would give helpful >to patrons early warning. Perhaps early display of [carrier : >content] (as advocated by the MRIs*) would fill that need for most >resources, but not for large print, since it lacks an RDA content >term. >We do not create records as an end in themselves for bibliographic >utilities or catalogues, but as a service to patrons in identifying >what they seek. Why not [carrier : content : font size] derived from [338a : 336a : 340n]? That would result in "volume : text : large print." It's in the granular nature of the data elements that we can serve users best. All of these terms are registered vocabulary which opens the door in the future to local substitution of displayed terms. Far better than the ridiculous punctuation requirements of sequencing 245$h in the midst of the title statement or the lack of the granularity in 300$a (as in 300$a 125 pages (large print)). And, yes, I am going to add those new RDA elements to the search result brief display in my catalog. In the tests I've run they look just fine. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
