-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        cataloging reproductions question
Date:   Tue, 8 Apr 2008 16:35:48 -0400
From:   Dragon, Patricia M <[log in to unmask]>
To:     <[log in to unmask]>



Hello everyone,

I apologize if this question has been asked before, but I searched the
archives and could not find the answer spelled out in so many words. Am
I correct that the map cataloging community generally (including those
who contribute to OCLC) ignores LCRI 1.11A which draws a distinction
between “on-demand” photocopies and formal facsimiles that constitute
new editions, and says that for on-demand photocopies the description
should be based on the original, with the details of the reproduction in
a 533 note? In looking at Cartographic Materials 1.11, it seems so, but
then I wasn’t sure of the impact of OCLC on this.

Some background: I am cataloging some photocopies (and formal reprints)
that have been lying uncataloged in our map collection for 40 years. We
don’t own the originals. In some cases, it’s difficult to tell what the
original was or find a description of it. In other cases, in particular
the formal facsimiles, it is not so difficult. Based on Cartographic
Materials 1.11, I am thinking for all of them of describing the item in
hand, with a 534 containing information about the original (as much as
we have). Fixed field DtSt would be r, with Date1 being the date of the
item in hand, Date2 being the date of the original. Can someone(s) with
more map cataloging experience confirm I’m on the right track?

Thanks so much,

Patricia

Patricia M. Dragon

Special Collections Cataloging, Metadata, and Authorities Coordinator

Joyner Library

East Carolina University

Greenville NC 27858

(252) 328-0296

[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>