-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        Genre/form discussions as related to cataloging cartographic
materials
Date:   Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:11:58 -0500
From:   Harry Davis <[log in to unmask]>
To:     <[log in to unmask]>



As those who attended the meeting of the ALCTS/MAGERT Cartographic
Resources Cataloging Discussion Group at ALA in Chicago know, comments
on the suitability of a new genre/form approach to map (and other
cartographic resource) cataloging are due to LC by August 10.

I met with catalogers at my library yesterday to consider “Proposed
Changes to the Structure of /LCSH /Subdivisions Used for Cartographic
Materials – Discussion Paper, June 10, 2009.” We tried to identify what
we see as the pluses and minuses in the proposal and it sort of came out
50-50.

I recognize the disadvantage of the inversion in form that can occur
with form subdivision and subject headings (e.g., “Maps, Tourist” /cf./
“Tourist Maps”), but I find it somewhat overreaching to then render the
651 sub-field as /just plain /“Maps.” “Maps” seems an excessively
generalized and less purposeful access approach than is warranted for
larger map collections. How useful or desired is “France --- Maps” as an
access point? The same argument or question can attach to larger numbers
of certain types of maps (e.g., physical maps).

Patron approach in requesting maps resources generally favors geography
first and map subject second, /not/ simply geography and then any and
all “maps” for that geography. The admitted exceptions would be requests
of the type “What maps do you have of Iceland? “ (a question which can
and should then be pursued to see if there is a subject interest). The
value of access at “[Geography] – Maps” seems inversely proportional to
geographic “size.” Thus, something like “Vaduz, Liechtenstein --- Maps”
may be more useful in most libraries than “France --- Maps.”

Maybe the inverted forms in the 65X fields aren’t that bad if indeed
consistent in all 65X fields. Granted, inverted forms aren’t so
user-friendly in terms of natural language, but neither is the broad
rubric of “Maps” that consistently helpful. An alternative position
would be to use only natural language in all 65X fields.

So… we here would like to know what others are thinking out in the map
cataloging world _and _among those assisting patrons to find and use maps.

Please share your thoughts online.

/ /

Thanks,

Harry O. Davis

Map Librarian

Liaison Librarian for Civil and Environmental Engineering,

Geography and Environmental Resources, Geology,

Maps, and Mining and Mineral Resources Engineering

Morris Library

Southern Illinois University Carbondale

Carbondale, IL 62901-6632

Phone: 618~453~2372 or 618-453-2705

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