--- Begin Forwarded Message ---
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:13:35 GMT
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re:New edition/version vs. reprint 1.additional titles 2.
Same year, diff. month <fwd>
Sender: [log in to unmask]
1. In my opinion these should be treated as separate titles, with a note (if necessary) to explain the differences. If they aren't worth the trouble of cataloging them individually, I wonder if your library really needs to retain them. Would they might be more appropriately sent to another institution? If there are a great number of editions for any given map, maybe to save time you could treat it as a serial map, with appropriate holdings information.
2. Since your library has decided to use only the book record, perhaps all that is needed is a 500 note. I would make sure the book record has a "--Maps" subject heading attached to it, though.
[log in to unmask]
--------------------------------------------------------------
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: New edition/version vs. reprint 1.additional titles 2. Same
year, diff. month <fwd>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:51:56 -0400
--- Begin Forwarded Message ---
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 08:39:21 -0500
From: Gayle Porter <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: New edition/version vs. reprint 1.additional titles 2. Same
year, diff. month
Sender: Gayle Porter <[log in to unmask]>
> Hello, map colleagues,
> I have 2 questions about 2 separate situations in map cataloging (which I
> do occasionally):
The issue is whether or not the differences described below warrant new
records...
> 1. New edition/version vs. reprint:additional titles
>
> I'm cataloging blueprint maps of local townships, and some include
> earlier/later issues, all in the same year. Some of the uncataloged maps,
> i.e., later issues, differ from the earlier issues *only* in by having
> additional titles; all other information is the same. To me, the sole
> difference of the additional title doesn't seem significant enough to make
> a new record. Am I right?
>
> 2. New edition/version vs. reprint:Same year, diff. month
>
> I'm cataloging a book with 2 accompanying maps; all three are entitled:
> Ecological subsections of southeast Alaska and neighboring areas of
> Canada. The book authors are Gregory Nowacki ... [et al.]. There are
> separate catalog records for the map and the book, but because the titles
> for both are the same, a local decision was made to avoid using the map
> record but keep the book record and treat the 2 maps as accompanying items
> to it, i.e, use one record so that patrons wouldn't be confused. The
> problem is that the maps were issued in different months during 2001. They
> have the same information; the only other differences are: font size and
> type in the author area on one map; the map title (on the other map) was
> repeated in the upper righthand corner. Again, I don't think these
> differences are significant enough to make a new record. Am I right to
> treat them as copies? If so, should I make a 500 note in the bib record
> describing the month differences?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Gayle Porter
> Catalog Librarian
> Purdue University Libraries
> 1530 Stewart Center, Room 364
> West Lafayette, IN 47907-1534
> Phone: 765-494-3103 Fax: 765-494-0156
> [log in to unmask]
>
--- End Forwarded Message ---
Phil Hoehn, Librarian
David Rumsey Collection
San Francisco
[log in to unmask]
http://www.davidrumsey.com
--- End Forwarded Message ---
|
