--- Begin Forwarded Message ---
>Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 16:44:14 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Ken Grabach <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Cataloging: 300 subfield c, map fragments (fwd)
 
Here's my understanding of this area of cataloguing.  300 subfield is to
be information encompassing the published format, or in manuscripts how
the item was composed by its author.  500 notes are to describe for
published material something that applies to the entire publishing run,
mainly to aid in use or identification of the item.  If you are describing
something that could to an individual copy it would go in a local note,
590.  I am less sure when it comes to unpublished or manuscript material
in the original, whether information requires a 590 or 500 note.
 
 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 00:02:13
> From: John Buelow <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Cataloging: 300 subfield c, map fragments
>
> [this message is being cross-posted on AUTOCAT]
>
>
> Before the age of mechanical papermaking and not infrequently thereafter,
> many manuscript maps were drawn on two or several sheets pasted together
> beforehand.  Cartographic Materials 5B, especially 5B2a, leads me to
> suppose that such maps, if still intact, should each be described as--
>
> (a)  1 map : ms. ; 123 x 79 cm.
>
> , although I am sometimes tempted to add a 500 note--
>
> (b)  Map comprised of four sheets assembled before drawing.
>
> Unfortunately, older, especially manuscript maps are not always in good
> shape.  A map drawn on 4 sheets pasted together to make one sheet may now
> be in 4 pieces again, though the extent of no piece coincide with the
> original sheets.  It may also be in three or six or more pieces, some very
> small.  Thus--
>
> (c)  1 map: ms., dissected in 6 pieces ; 123 x 79 cm.
>
> or
>
> (d)  1 map : ms., dissected ; 123 x 79 cm.
>
> The following diction might be better whenever the map seems to have fallen
> apart without the abettance of any knife wielding librarian--
>
> (e)  1 map : ms., fragmented ; 123 x 79 cm.
>
> A final complicating factor comes about as a result of conservation effort.
>  The various pieces may be mounted on one or more pieces of linen or other
> material.
>
> (f)  1 map : ms., fragmented, mounted on linen ; 123 x 79 cm., linen 75 x
> 80 and 51 x 80 cm.
>
> Will anyone confirm which of these formulas are acceptable?  Have those
> revising Cartographic Materials come up with better ways of describing
> damaged manuscript material?  If so, I'd be very grateful for immediate
> information.
>
>
> John Buelow
> New York Historical Society
> [log in to unmask]
>
 
 
_________________________________________
Ken Grabach         <[log in to unmask]>
Documents Dept.
Miami University Libraries
Oxford, Ohio  45056  USA
--- End Forwarded Message ---