================================================
MAPS-L ** MAPS-L ** MAPS-L ** MAPS-L ** MAPS-L
================================================
Subject: Re: MAPS-L: L.C. versus Dewey
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005
From: Paige Andrew <[log in to unmask]>
Mary,
The question of "which classification system is best" for map
collections has been bandied back and forth for some time, one of those
things that rolls around every two or three years. Of course, the
majority of map collections do use the LC G-classification system (as
you hinted at), and thats because of its level of specificity and
hierarchical structure in starting with the world as a whole and
subdividing it down into finer and finer parts. I have long-since
forgotten how Dewey "works" but I remember that it doesn't necessarily
reach down as far as LC does in indicating smaller geographical
locations. Then there are collections that use other classification
systems with success, what comes to mind immediately is the American
Geographical Society map collection at the Univ. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee,
where they still use the use a system built "in house" and a few
collections that use a system called Boggs & Lewis that was developed in
the 1940s.
There's an excellent comparative discourse on a variety of
classification systems, including LC, Dewey, Boggs & Lewis, etc.,
included in the article, "Cataloging Early Atlases: A Reference Source"
written by Lisa Romero and Nancy Romero under the the header of
"Classification" on pages 278-280 of the book Maps and Related
Cartographic Materials: Cataloging, Classification and Bibliographic
Control (initially published as Vol. 27 (1999) of Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, a special double issue co-edited by Mary
Larsgaard and myself) and in the same publication an entire article
devoted to classification of maps and atlases using LC G titled
"Navigating the G Schedule" by Susan Moore (pp. 375-384).
I would be remiss in not pointing out Mary Larsgaard's excellent book on
map librarianship, Introduction to Map Librarianship, the 3rd issue was
published in 1998, where she devotes much space to classification and
the various schemes that can be used for organizing a map and atlas
collection.
I'd be willing to talk to an administrator in person if you want to
refer me, and I'm willing to bet Mary would be willing to do the same
(and probably with better comparative knowledge than I might have since
I've only been using LC over the years...)
Paige
At 03:01 PM 5/17/2005, you wrote:
> ================================================
> MAPS-L ** MAPS-L ** MAPS-L ** MAPS-L ** MAPS-L
> ================================================
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Fwd: L.C. versus Dewey
> Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 11:49:26 -0700
> From: "Mary Douglass" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Hello
> From time to time I have asked a general question on Maps-L about the
> value
> of cataloging maps so that I could have some feedback for convincing
> discussions with management. With the exception of some isolated
> instances, the only catalogued cartographic material at Seattle Public
> Library are federal, state and local depository items (and not all of
> them).
>
> However, I am glad to report that we now have the opportunity to catalog
> our local history map collection, and the librarian who has been
> cataloging
> our local documents will take on the cataloging task. These items have
> previously been classed with a hybrid map classification scheme that was
> developed years ago by the former map librarians here at Seattle Public.
> Of course, all of our main library material is classed using Dewey, so the
> task before us now is to decide whether to use Dewey or LC to class our
> historical map collection.
>
> And I know what system a number of Mapsters would recommend, but I am
> interested in your opinions. I would like to collect a handful of cogent
> statements that summarize the value of using LC or Dewey (or some other
> system), and I thank you for your responses in advance.
>
> In addition, I would love to know if there is a map cataloger or map
> librarian out there who would be willing to chat with the administrator of
> our Seattle Collection. In addition to written feedback, I think
> that she
> would simply like to have a conversation with someone who can help her
> think through the issues we are faced with. Any volunteers?
>
> Mary Douglass
> History, Travel and Maps Department
> Seattle Public Library
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> Received: from gwmail2.spl.org [66.212.75.145] by gwmail.spl.org; Wed,
> 04 May 2005 14:54:08 -0700
> Received: from mail2.spl.org ([66.212.65.201])
> by gwmail2.spl.org (SAVSMTP 3.1.0.29) with SMTP id
> M2005050414540809333 for
> <[log in to unmask]>; Wed, 04 May 2005 14:54:08 -0700
> Received: from malibu.cc.uga.edu (malibu.cc.uga.edu [128.192.1.103])
> by mail2.spl.org (8.13.3/8.13.3/Debian-6) with SMTP id j44Ls5q8007372 for
> <[log in to unmask]>; Wed, 04 May 2005 14:54:08 -0700
> Received: from listserv.cc.uga.edu (128.192.1.75)
> by malibu.cc.uga.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b)
> with SMTP id <[log in to unmask]>; Wed, 04 May 2005
> 17:54:05 -0400
> Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 17:54:05 -0400
> From: Mary Douglass <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: L.C. versus Dewey
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Cc: Mary Douglass <[log in to unmask]>
> Message-id: <[log in to unmask]>
> MIME-version: 1.0
> Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT
>
> Hello
> From time to time I have asked a general question on Maps-L about the
> value
> of cataloging maps so that I could have some feedback for convincing
> discussions with management. With the exception of some isolated
> instances, the only catalogued cartographic material at Seattle Public
> Library are federal, state and local depository items (and not all of
> them).
>
> However, I am glad to report that we now have the opportunity to catalog
> our local history map collection, and the librarian who has been
> cataloging
> our local documents will take on the cataloging task. These items have
> previously been classed with a hybrid map classification scheme that was
> developed years ago by the former map librarians here at Seattle Public.
> Of course, all of our main library material is classed using Dewey, so the
> task before us now is to decide whether to use Dewey or LC to class our
> historical map collection.
>
> And I know what system a number of Mapsters would recommend, but I am
> interested in your opinions. I would like to collect a handful of cogent
> statements that summarize the value of using LC or Dewey (or some other
> system), and I thank you for your responses in advance.
>
> In addition, I would love to know if there is a map cataloger or map
> librarian out there who would be willing to chat with the administrator of
> our Seattle Collection. In addition to written feedback, I think
> that she
> would simply like to have a conversation with someone who can help her
> think through the issues we are faced with. Any volunteers?
>
> Mary Douglass
> History, Travel and Maps Department
> Seattle Public Library
> [log in to unmask]
--
|
