----------------------------Original message----------------------------
The University of Chicago Library's home-grown on-line
catalog was finally altered a year and a half ago so that it
could accept map records. Since that time the Cataloging
Dept. here has done original cataloging of a few dozen items
and has also attached our symbol (CGU) to a couple of
hundred OCLC records. In addition Map Collection staff have
added nearly 4000 records to our on-line catalog, mostly
from OCLC copy, that indicate that an item is indeed
available; in theory, these records are to be upgraded in
the coming years. Of course this is just a drop in the
bucket in a collection containing nearly 80,000 titles (this
assumes ca. 5 sheets per title), but you've got to start
somewhere.
 
All this leads to a vague question. Cataloging has said it
would be willing to continue to do a small amount of
original map cataloging (as well as to handle new titles
that come in through Acquisitions). I'm a bit at a loss as
to whether it's best to send them older items or to choose
among recent publications for which there is no cataloging
copy available. Metaphorically, it's a choice between doing,
e.g., an 18th-century map of the Ganges Delta or a current
St. Louis transit map, i.e., between cataloging materials
that are most likely to be of real scholarly significance,
or getting a little closer to the goal of at least having a
complete on-line record of recent acquisitions (in our case
in an on-line catalog where only a small amount of recon has
been done). I'd be especially grateful to get advice from
folks at the relatively few institutions that have been as
backward about map cataloging as this one, but analogous
dilemmas must be widespread. (It's worth mentioning that
Cataloging has indicated it isn't anxious to deal with large
sets of topos.)
 
Thanks, and sorry to go on for so long!
 
Chris Winters
University of Chicago Library
 
Bitnet:          uclwint@uchimvs1
Internet:        [log in to unmask]