-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Early map cataloging - maps from atlases and map states
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:54:52 +0000
From: Fell, Todd <[log in to unmask]>
To: Maps, Air Photo, GIS Forum - Map Librarianship <[log in to unmask]>


Alissa,

A slight correction to my previous reply concerning 500/7xx vs. 773
fields: For those maps that has been detached from an atlas, you would
use the 500 (From or Appears in note) and 7xx fields. When describing
maps still within an atlas (or a component part of another item), you
would use the 773 linking field.

Apologies for any confusion.

Todd Fell
Catalog Librarian
Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library
[log in to unmask]
________________________________________
From: Fell, Todd
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 12:12 PM
To: Maps, Air Photo, GIS Forum - Map Librarianship
Cc: Fell, Todd
Subject: RE: Early map cataloging - maps from atlases and map states

Alissa,

This is a very opportune time to post these questions, as the editorial
group currently writing rules for cataloging rare cartographic material
(Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials, Cartographic or DCRM(C))
discussed these two issues at our last meeting a week ago.

As concerns maps from atlases, either option would work. If you are
certain a particular map came from a particular atlas, using the 773
linking entry would be the preferred option. But the 500/740 (or 7xx
author/title added entry) option would not be wrong either. The latter
option might be the better one when you cannot determine which atlas the
map came from or when you know it appeared in a particular atlas (or
several editions of an atlas) but cannot pinpoint exactly which one. If
you do choose the 500/740 option, the practice has been to use a 500
"From ..." note for those maps you are absolutely certain came from an
atlas (From the author’s The theatre of the Empire of Great Britaine,
1676), or, a 500 "Appears in ..." note for those maps whose source you
cannot determine and which are identical with those that appeared in
several editions of an atlas or in several different works (e.g. Appears
in Jansson’s Atlas novus). The method would not change regardless of wh!
  ether a copy of the atlas is owned or not.

As for the multiple states, the best practice would be to create
individual records for each state. Several points about the examples you
give, though. First, each of these maps has a different date. I would
not consider a different date of printing/publishing to be a "state";
these would be a new printing/publication and thus, would require a
separate record. Defining "state" for non-letterpress material is a bit
trickier than the traditional understanding of states for letterpress
material. Second, if you were to use one record for various "states" of
a map, I would not use the 505 contents note; I would put the "state"
information in 590 local notes.

I hope this helps. Just to note, when DCRM(C) is published (hopefully by
December of next year) there will be separate appendices dealing with
the issues you bring up (the specific appendices are "Variations
Requiring a New Record," "Maps as Component Parts of Other Works," and
"Source of Map"). If you have any additional questions or concerns, or
if you would like to read a draft of these appendices, please feel free
to contact me.

For others on the list who might be interested in reading a draft of the
rules, you can visit the DCRM(C) wiki at:
http://dcrmc.pbworks.com/w/page/6107912/FrontPage. There you will find
not only the most recent draft of the manual, but also various
discussions of the areas and rules and prospective examples of given rules.

Todd Fell
Catalog Librarian
Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library
[log in to unmask]

________________________________________
From: Maps, Air Photo, GIS Forum - Map Librarianship
[[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Angie Cope, American Geographical
Society Library,              UW Milwaukee [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 3:09 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Early map cataloging - maps from atlases and map states

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Early map cataloging - maps from atlases and map states
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:06:15 -0500
From: Alissa Hafele <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
CC: Alissa Hafele <[log in to unmask]>


Hello all,

I am a new map cataloging assistant at Branner Library and am hoping to draw
on your collective wisdom. We are currently cataloging a collection of early
maps (mostly 17-18th century) many of which have come from atlases.
Additionally, we are dealing with multiple states for many of them. So, I am
curious how you all are handling each of these situations.

For the first issue we are currently including a 500 note and then a 740
entry. What I am wondering is, 1. is this the recommended method or is a 773
preferred? and 2. does this method change at all if a copy of the atlas is
owned?

ie
100 1 : Doncker, Hendrik I., 1626-1699.
245 10 : Pas-caart van Zuyd-Zee, tusschen California en ilhas de Ladrones /
... Hendrick Doncker Boekverkooper en Graadboogh maker inde
Nieubrughsteegh in’t Stuurmans Gereetshap.
500 : Issued in the author’s La Atlas del mundo o el mundo aguado. [1669].
740 : La Atlas del mundo o el mundo aguado. [1669].


My second question is regarding various map states. Our thinking is to
include all the states on one record and to use a 505 content note. Here is
an example of what we are dealing with...

MAPPE-MONDE, ou CARTE GENERALE DE LA TERRE, | DIVISÉE EN DEUX HEMISPHEREs
SUIVANT LA PROJECTION LA PLUS COMMUNE OU TOUS LES POINTS PRINCIPAUX SONT
PLACEZ SUR LES OBSERVATIONS DE Mrs. DE L’ACADEMIE ROYALE DES SIENCES / Par
N. de Fer, Geographe de Monseig. Le Dauphin. – Scale [ca.
1:120,000,000]. –
A paris : Chez l’Autheur dans l’Isle du Palais sur le Quay de
l’Orloge ala
Sphere Royale. Ave Privilege du Roy, 1700.

State 1 Dated 1700 in the title cartouche, and at lower right.

State 2 Dated 1702.

State 3 Dated 1705 in the title cartouche, and 1700 lower right.

State 4 Dated 1708.

State 5 Dated 1718.

State 6 Dated 1728 in the title cartouche and 1718 at lower right.  “Avec
Privilege du Roy 1718.” (lower right).  In title: A Paris Chez J.F. Bonard
Gendre. ¶ Issued in his: Atlas ou recüeil de carte geograhiques …
[Map 5]. –
A Paris, 1709-[28].


Any thoughts on these issues would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you in advance and have a great holiday season,

Alissa Hafele