5 replies below ...
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        Re: map cataloging question
Date:   Tue, 03 Jul 2007 16:27:21 -0400
From:   Frank Wihbey <[log in to unmask]>
To:     Maps, Air Photo & Geospatial Systems Forum <[log in to unmask]>




Ken:
   I suggest including both in the 020 field.  Put the trustworthy ISBN in the "a" subfield (the first one) and place the anomalous one in subfield z.  Check out http://www.lib.auburn.edu/catalog/docs/marcpunct.html#0xx

Thank you,

F r a n k

Frank Wihbey
Head, Government Publications, Maps, GIS & Microforms Department
    Tri-State Regional Document Depository
    Canadian Federal Government Document Depository
    GeoStats Spatial & Numeric Data Service
Raymond H. Fogler Library
University of Maine
Orono, ME  04469-5729  USA
Voice:  207-581-1681
Fax:     207-581-1653
Email:  [log in to unmask]
Department's web pages:
  http://library.umaine.edu/govdoc
  http://library.umaine.edu/census
  http://library.umaine.edu/geoscan
Personal web page:   http://library.umaine.edu/staff/wihbey.htm


-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        RE: map cataloging question
Date:   Tue, 3 Jul 2007 16:03:30 -0400
From:   April Carlucci <[log in to unmask]>










Dear Ken

As we know, map publishers often re-use ISBNs for different editions,
probably not understanding the meaning of the ISBN or how much trouble they
are causing librarians and our users!

My suggestion is to make a third record which reflects correctly the
information as it appears on the map you have in hand. After all, your map
doesn't really fit either OCLC record you found. It won't be a duplicate
because it will have a different combination of elements. And if you don't
correct the situation, the next person with the same map will face the same
conundrum.

My two cents (no longer dealing in pence),
April

April Carlucci
Catalog Librarian for Maps
Yale University Library
PO Box 208240
New Haven CT 06520  USA
(203) 432-6336

**note new address**


-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        RE: map cataloging question
Date:   Tue, 3 Jul 2007 13:52:55 -0600
From:   Ken Rockwell <[log in to unmask]>
To:     Maps, Air Photo & Geospatial Systems Forum <[log in to unmask]>

My first thought is that perhaps the cataloger of the 1998 edition made
a goof--possibly deriving the record from the later edition's record and
forgetting to change the ISBNs.  Try to verify if there really was a
1998 map with the later ISBNs. (Some map publishers recycle the ISBN
over and over regardless of edition; others change them, as this one
apparently did.)  If you conclude that the record wrong, I'd use that,
and maybe report an error to OCLC. (Though you may not have enough proof
for OCLC, maybe they'll look into it and agree.)

--Ken Rockwell


-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        Re: map cataloging question
Date:   Tue, 03 Jul 2007 15:52:50 -0400
From:   Amy Phillips <[log in to unmask]>










Greetings Mr. Grabach:

In these mismatched (edition/states) cases (thankfully I've encountered
them very little) - I usually create a new record and report the error
to OCLC (one can do this through Connexion).

Bests,

Amy Phillips

Maps-L wrote:
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:        map cataloging question
> Date:   Tue, 3 Jul 2007 14:45:07 -0400
> From:   Grabach, Kenneth A. Mr. <[log in to unmask]>
> To:     Maps, Air Photo & Geospatial Systems Forum
> <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
> I have encountered a conundrum for which I would like some advice.
>
> I have a copy of a map from China Cartographic Publishing House:  Map
> of the People's Republic of China, dated 1998.  This is a political
> map, published bilingually in Chinese and English.  I have found
> WorldCat Oclc records for 1998, 2nd ed., as this one is.  But the
> conundrum is that the ISBN, both 10 and 13 digit versions, match a
> later, 4th ed. Map given variously as 2000, or 2003 in Oclc.  I am
> unsure which version of the record to use.  If I use the one for which
> most of the data matches, then the ISBN we have will not show up in
> the database after I change it.  If I choose the one for which ISBN
> matches, I am really using a record for a later edition of the map.
> Any choice I make is going to be a compromise, unless I create a new
> record.  I am not really comfortable with this choice, because I can
> find records that match in one way or another; I don't want to create
> knowingly a duplicate record.
>
> Ken Grabach                           <[log in to unmask]>
> Maps Librarian                         Phone: 513-529-1726
> Miami University Libraries
> Oxford, Ohio  45056  USA