-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Surface Management/Minerals Management Status series
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:02:36 -0400
From: Michael Fry <[log in to unmask]>
Organization: University of Maryland Libraries
To: Maps and Air Photo Systems Forum <[log in to unmask]>
References: <[log in to unmask]>
Hi Jenny,
We're a regional depository, so we've kept all editions per existing (if not terribly current) FDLP
policy on superseding (http://www.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/suplist/suplist02.pdf). It's
frustrating, really, because those maps get virtually zero use here--we're across the country from
the geography they depict--and because storing them is a hassle. As an aside, it's nonsensical to me
that FDLP rules require us to keep old editions of maps that get little use, but *don't* require
retention of maps (i.e., older topos) that are widely seen as historically useful. But that's a
separate issue... ;)
Anyway, several months ago I asked the Docs community (via GOVDOC-L) about these rules...
===========
I'd like to discard old editions of an item that's explicitly listed in the Superseded List as
"Discard if revised." The item, however, is also marked with the "R", which indicates that it should
be retained for long term public access not by legal requirement of Title 44, but by "a consensus
agreement of the Regionals."
I interpret that to mean that Regionals can ultimately and legitimately decide for themselves
whether said items should be retained (i.e., it's a suggestion, not a legal requirement). Do others
interpret it that way?
===========
There was virtually no reply on GOVDOC-L, but there was a great deal of conversation on Regional-L.
Apparently there's a lot of history behind the "R" and other agreements that govern what Regionals
should keep, some of which aren't well known. I didn't get a definitive answer to my question--I'm
not sure there is one?--but there was at least some sentiment, if not an official statement, that
Regionals should not feel free to interpret the "R" as they see fit. There was talk about discussing
this issue at the fall depository conference--it's a big can of worms--but I don't know where that
stands.
Meanwhile, I'm still inclined to weed old editions of these series, but haven't done so.
Hope this helps.
mf
--
Michael Fry
Map Librarian
Government Information, Maps and GIS Services
4118 McKeldin Library
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
301.314.1357 | [log in to unmask]
Maps-L Moderator wrote:
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Surface Management/Minerals Management Status series
> Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:16:55 -0500
> From: Jenny Marie Johnson <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
> To: MAPS-L <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
> Hi.
>
> I'm wondering what kind of retention policies people have for the BLM
> 1:100,000-scale surface management status and minerals management status
> series.
>
> Do you keep all editions? Do you just retain the most recent edition
> received and withdraw older editions?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Jenny Marie Johnson
> Map and Geography Librarian and
> Assoc. Professor of Library Administration
>
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
|
